Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

AYLESBURY VALE DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL [Lords]

Read the Third time, and passed.

COUNTY OF LANCASHIRE BILL [Lords] (By Order)

Amendments agreed to.

Ordered,
That Standing Order 205 (Notice of third reading) be suspended, and that the Bill be now read the Third time—[First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means.]

Order for Third reading read.

Queen's consent, on behalf of the Crown, signified.

Read the Third time and passed, with amendments.

LONDON TRANSPORT (TOWER HILL) BILL [Lords]

Ordered,
That the Committee on Unopposed Bills have leave to visit and inspect the site of the works proposed in the London Transport (Tower Hill) Bill [Lords] provided that no evidence shall be taken in the course of such visit and that the Promoters of the Bill be permitted to attend by their Agent.—[First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means.]

Oral Answers to Questions — TRANSPORT

M6–M61 (Whitebirk-Blackburn)

Mr. Straw: asked the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects to announce his decision relating to the Whitebirk-Blackburn to M6–M61 section of the M65 motorway.

The Minister of State, Department of Transport (Mrs. Lynda Chalker): As I announced on 26 July, in a written reply to my hon. Friend the Member for South Ribble (Mr. Atkins), I have decided to include in the trunk road programme an all-purpose trunk road route to the south of Blackburn which would link the M65 at Whitebirk with the M6 and M61.

Mr. Straw: Is the Minister aware that her announcement last Thursday to make the link between the M65 and the M61 was widely welcomed in my constituency and throughout north-east Lancashire and that we are grateful to her? As there has been a four-year delay since the cancellation of the original motorway scheme from the M65 to the M61, much anxiety has been caused in my constituency and elsewhere about how long the new road scheme will take. May we have some idea of how long it will be before the new road is built?

Mrs. Chalker: I am grateful to the hon. Member for his comments. He knows that the decision was difficult and finely balanced. I shall be approaching the consultants shortly and asking them to study the route south of Blackburn. It is too early to predict what will happen, but I give him and other interested hon. Members the assurance that we shall move as speedily as is sensible.

Mr. Robert Atkins: Is my hon. Friend aware how pleased I and many other colleagues are by her decision, based on the facts presented to her by a variety of people? Is she further aware how grateful we are, particularly in my constituency in the Samlesbury and Mellor Brook area, that the plan chosen is not that which would have damaged


the east part of my constituency? May we have an undertaking, now or as soon as possible, that the proposed trunk route will be upgraded to motorway standard if necessary?

Mrs. Chalker: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for welcoming the announcement. I am aware of the need to consider the Samlesbury junction with the M6. I cannot give the assurance that my hon. Friend seeks, because that would prejudice the work on which the consultants are about to embark. However, I shall keep his remarks in mind.

Airline Policy

Mr. Prescott: asked the Secretary of State for Transport which organisations the Civil Aviation Authority consulted in the process of preparing its review of airline competition policy; and, in particular, which appropriate trade unions it consulted.

The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Nicholas Ridley): The organisations responding to the Civil Aviation Authority's consultative letters, listed in appendix 2 to the authority's final report on airline competition policy, included a number of trades unions.

Mr. Prescott: Will the Secretary of State confirm that the trade unions have not been consulted about the implications of the CAA report? Will he also confirm that he has met leaders of the airline industry, including Sir Adam Thomson and Lord King, to discuss the report's implications? Is the right hon. Gentleman not in danger once again of unilaterally intervening in industrial relations, as he did in the docks dispute, and therefore making another strike more likely? Does he agree that thousands of jobs are threatened as a result of the CAA review?

Mr. Ridley: No, Sir. The CAA consulted all the unions concerned. Since the report's publication, unions have been free to write to me about their views. Some have done that. It would be wrong for me to see the unions at present, because I have first to see the airlines concerned.

Sir Humphrey Atkins: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the strength of feeling of a large number of the 37,000 remaining employees of British Airways who, having gone along willingly with a reduction in the work force from 58,000, now believe that the Civil Aviation Authority's suggestion that more of their routes should be taken away and more of their jobs lost is bad and hope that he will turn it down?

Mr. Ridley: I am sure my right hon. Friend will accept that the Government have not yet reached a decision on the matter and that it would be wrong for me to prejudge any such decision. I understand the fears and apprehensions of all those involved in this dispute.

Mr. Alfred Morris: The Secretary of State will be aware of my constituency interest in Manchester international airport and of the grave anxieties among its thousands of employees concerning the present uncertainties. Is there no definitive word that the right hon. Gentleman can say about the CAA's report before the recess? When will he make a statement?

Mr. Ridley: I am aware of the uncertainty that the report has caused. I hope to make a decision and announce it as soon as possible, though that may not be while the House is still sitting.

Mr. Steen: Is it true that a decision will be made about the CAA report on Thursday, as was suggested in the Sunday Express? Does my right hon. Friend appreciate that if the CAA report is rejected there are likely to be upwards of 5,000 redundancies in the independent private airlines?

Mr. Ridley: My hon. Friend is an old enough hand to know that he should not believe everything he reads in the newspapers. I fear that that even goes for the Sunday Express. I am acutely aware of all points of view. Indeed, it would be difficult not to be. I cannot make any comment on the substance of the matter until the Government have reached their conclusions.

Mr. Carter-Jones: Will the Secretary of State say whether, as a result of the replies that he has received, the management or trade union side of any provincial airport has given support for the CAA report?

Mr. Ridley: I have had no direct communication from the trade unions in relation to any regional airport, but I have had representations of a national character from protagonists on both sides.

Mr. Dicks: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there will be grave disquiet inside and outside the House if he makes a statement on this issue during the recess? Will he promise that, if he does not make it before the recess, he will at least leave it until after we return, so that we may question him on whatever decision he makes?

Mr. Ridley: I have no doubt that my hon. Friend will question me and other Ministers at length in due course. I invite him to agree with me that to leave the industry in a state of suspense until we return from our recess would be unfair to the industry.

Mr. Park: Is the Minister aware that to disturb the present situation at the new Birmingham airport would be extremely damaging?

Mr. Ridley: I note what the hon. Gentleman says.

Mr. Wilkinson: Is my right hon. Friend aware that germane to this whole matter are the mechanics and timing of privatisation and the question of airport policy? Is he further aware that to try to settle competition policy in the abstract, without resolving those questions, could lead to an unsatisfactory solution? Will he think long and hard, take heed of the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Dicks), and not rush into anything which we may later regret?

Mr. Ridley: I assure my hon. Friend that I have thought, and will continue to think, long and hard. I believe that when conclusions are reached it is right to inform the world at large.

Mr. Dalyell: Has the Secretary of State considered the effect on employees at Edinburgh airport? Does he think that it is good enough to rattle off the sort of answer that he gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, North-East (Mr. Park) and simply say that he notes what my hon. Friend says? Will he give a better answer than that?

Mr. Ridley: I understand that Edinburgh airport will be involved only indirectly in the proposals set out in the CAA report. The routes which it is proposed to be transferred may or may not be transferred. However, they will still be flown, and the net effect on employment must be minimal, if anything.

Mr. Adley: Does my right hon. Friend still think that he was right to refer the matter to the CAA? What circumstances, if any, have changed since he did so?

Mr. Ridley: The enormous concern and importance of the issue are such that it would have been quite wrong for the House not to have a report from the CAA. It is clear from the reaction that there are strong views on both sides of the House. The issue should not be brushed under the carpet by refusing to consider it.

British Airways

Mr. Tony Lloyd: asked the Secretary of State for Transport when he next plans to meet the chairman of British Airways.

Mr. Ridley: Quite soon, I expect.

Mr. Lloyd: Is the Secretary of State aware that no reputable opinion in Manchester is in favour of the CAA report? When he next meets Lord King, will he tell him that he, the Secretary of State, rejects the non-competitive nonsense contained in the report, which would see the removal of the national carrier from Manchester airport and relegate the airport to third division status? Does he accept that this would have a detrimental effect on the entire northern region?

Mr. Ridley: I do not intend to tell Lord King that until the Government have made up their mind that that is their view, or that the reverse is the case. I cannot prejudge the decision to which I shall be coming soon.

Mr. Colvin: My right hon. Friend is probably aware that when he meets Lord King, if he does, he will probably be reminded that back in 1979, when the then Secretary of State gave his pledge to denationalise British Airways, he also gave two more pledges: first, not to reallocate routes, and, secondly, to give employees the opportunity to buy shares in the company. If he goes ahead with reallocation, will he ask Lord King just how ready the employees will still be to take shares in the company when 8 per cent. of its business is to be given away to its main competitors?

Mr. Ridley: I cannot comment on the first part of my hon. Friend's supplementary question, but he has raised matters that we shall be taking into account. I confirm that it is the Government's intention to allow employees of British Airways to purchase or to be given shares, whichever it may be, so that they might enjoy the continued prosperity of the airline upon privatisation—and privatisation will certainly continue.

Mr. Cowans: When the Secretary of State next meets the chairman of British Airways, will he draw to his attention one of his answers in Hansard to the effect that it would be wrong for the House not to have a report from the CAA? Will he assure the chairman of British Airways that it would be equally wrong if the House did not have an opportunity to discuss the report before any decisions are taken? Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman wishes to retract his earlier answer.

Mr. Ridley: The House has had an opportunity to discuss the report. It did so for three hours in the early hours of last Thursday. I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman was not in the Chamber at the time.

Mr. Prescott: The Secretary of State did not speak in the debate.

Mr. Ridley: I was on the Government Front Bench and listened to every word that was said. The House should have a chance to discuss the report, and it has had that chance. I listened to the debate, and surely that is what I should have done.

Mr. Montgomery: When my right hon. Friend next meets the chairman of British Airways, will he check with him the effect that the CAA report, if implemented, will have on Manchester airport and if British Airways loses all its European flights to substitution, not competition? Will it not have a detrimental effect on an important airport?

Mr. Ridley: I hear what my hon. Friend says. I cannot comment until the Government have made up their mind.

Mr. Prescott: Neither the House nor Lord King will be convinced by the Secretary of State's dithering performance over the future of British aviation. Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm the charge made by Lord King that he was told that the airline would not be broken up if he carried it through its changes? Does he agree that Lord King feels that he has been betrayed by the Government and that he has a right to call for the Secretary of State's resignation?

Mr. Ridley: The hon. Gentleman must calm down a little and wait for the Government to announce their decision on that matter. I do not believe that the sort of wild talk in which he is engaging is relevant to this exercise.

Sealink UK Ltd.

Mr. Fisher: asked the Secretary of State for Transport if he will take steps to prevent the foreign ownership of British Rail Sealink.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. David Mitchell): We have taken steps designed to ensure that Sealink's ships will remain subject to the Government's powers of requistioning for defence purposes and that any future change in ownership would not materially affect the defence interest.

Mr. Fisher: That was not the answer to the question that I asked. I asked about foreign ownership. Does the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State recognise that many hon. Members on both sides of the House are opposed to foreign control and ownership of public services, such as Sealink, British Telecom and the royal ordnance factories? Is it significant that today the hon. Gentleman did not refer to the golden share? Is that no longer his policy for controlling potential foreign ownership? If the golden share is still his policy, will the hon. Gentleman explain who will monitor its operation, under what circumstances it will be operated and whether the criteria used will be based on whether a threat is posed to ownership or just simply on control? Will he define "control"?

Mr. Mitchell: The Secretary of State will be able, through the golden share, to ensure that ships are kept


available and subject to the Government's requisitioning powers. In relation to foreign flag, it would require the consent of the Secretary of State to put a sizeable part of the Sealink—[HON. MEMBERS: "Ownership."]—I said "ownership". I am answering the question. It will require the consent of my right hon. Friend to put a sizeable part of the Sealink fleet under a foreign flag. If such proposals arose, the Secretary of State would consider the defence implications.

Mr. Yeo: Will my hon. Friend confirm that the interests of the taxpayer, the customer and the Government will best be served by the encouragement on the Sealink route of competition between successful private sector companies of whatever origin? Will my hon. Friend do whatever he can to ensure that free competition continues?

Mr. Mitchell: The purchasers have given assurances of their intention to expand the business. I do not expect that there will be any diminution in the level of competition.

London Regional Transport

Mr. Tony Banks: asked the Secretary of State for Transport what are the terms of reference he has given to the new chairman of London Regional Transport; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Ridley: I set the objectives for London Regional Transport in letters to the chairman dated 20 July and 24 July, both of which have been published in the Official Report, at columns 373–74 and 555–57.

Mr. Banks: What directives has the Secretary of State issued to the chairman of London Regional Transport about fares and subsidies? Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm, or deny that fares will increase in London by 25 per cent. next year and that in 1986–87 there will be a 21 million mile cut in bus mileage, a 9 million mile cut in underground mileage and a loss of 9,000 jobs?

Mr. Ridley: I utterly deny all the figures which the hon. Gentleman has invented.

Mr. Dykes: Although this is a matter for the board rather than for my right hon. Friend, will he confirm the Government's enthusiasm for the continuation of the no-smoking ban for ever?

Mr. Ridley: As a smoker myself, my hon. Friend puts me in a corner. I must rely on the time-honoured ministerial statement that that is a matter for the board.

Mr. Cartwright: Will the Secretary of State assure the House that London Regional Transport will be able to undertake the long-overdue capital investment that is necessary to provide Londoners with a modern, up-to-date, efficient public transport system?

Mr. Ridley: Yes, Sir. One of the great advantages of being able to reduce revenue subsidies by half during the next three years is that more money will be available for capital investment, thereby improving the system.

Mr. Jessel: Now that London's buses and tubes no longer belong to the Greater London council, will my right hon. Friend ask the chairman of London Regional Transport to take down the black posters currently appearing on the backs of buses which say, "GLC Working for London," and replace them with red ones saying "GLC Working for Moscow"?

Mr. Ridley: I believe that those advertising posters arise out of a contract between London Transport, as it was, and the GLC. If my hon. Friend would like to enter into a contract to advertise on the buses, I am sure the chairman of the LRT would be only too happy to discuss it with him.

Mr. Spearing: Reverting to the denials of the Secretary of State to my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks), does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the Standard reported that his hon. Friend the Minister of State said that fares would go up by 20 per cent.? Is he aware that the chairman of London Regional Transport said that under his direction it would be necessary to reduce the number of jobs by 6,000 and that he could give no guarantee that the reduction would be achieved by voluntary redundancy?

Mr. Ridley: The hon. Gentleman should listen to what my hon. Friend the Minister of State says, not read the headlines in the Standard without reading through to the words that she used. If he did, he would find that she said that although fares might need to rise roughly in line with inflation, there might have to be an initial adjustment. The figure quoted by the hon. Member of Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) was totally false.

Motorway Driving

Mr. Janner: asked the Secretary of State for Transport whether he will issue a general warning to the public concerning the hazards of motorway driving during the summer holiday period.

Mrs. Chalker: I advised motorists in May that they could cut the risk of accidents and major delays on motorways this summer by looking out for advance warnings of road works, slowing to a safe speed and keeping their distance behind the vehicles in front. In addition, leaflets about lane discipline are being issued with every car licence renewal reminder.

Mr. Janner: Is the Minister aware that that good advice has been ignored by probably the majority of motorway drivers, who keep close behind the vehicles in front of them, cut in and out of lanes and take no notice of pamphlets of the type being sent out when licenses are issued? Will she now do something other than thundering in the Chamber, perhaps by passing out notices at motoway service stations so that people will recognise the dire danger that they cause to themselves and to others by their behaviour?

Mrs. Chalker: I am well aware of and share the hon. and learned Gentleman's concern about the lack of lane discipline and the mad driving in which some drivers indulge. The police will patrol those areas of the motorway as much as possible, and they will prosecute cases of careless driving where they occur. It is in everyone's interests to observe the rules of the road. It is not special advice; it is advice in the "Highway Code". We shall take whatever measures can effectively be taken by having pamphlets made available at motorway service areas. However, those who go through the cross-over sections at too fast a speed or who drive badly are rarely those who stop at motorway service areas, even when they ought to.

Mr. Wiggin: Is my hon. Friend aware that her advice will fall on deaf ears in my constituency where, last


Saturday week, there was a 15 to 20-mile traffic jam from dawn till dusk on the M5? One of the reasons is the misuse of the right-hand lane, which is not used just for overtaking, and the lunatic decision of the Government not to abolish the 70 mile speed limit.

Mrs. Chalker: Traffic jams occur when all motorists choose to travel at the same time. If they would vary their journeys considerably and follow the advice in the west country holiday routes leaflets, which are available, their journeys would be much easier. However, it is not just in this country that people choose to travel at the same time. Fortunately, we are a long way from the situation which occurred near Munich last weekend.

Sir Dudley Smith: Is my hon. Friend aware that at present there are no fewer than five sets of road works on the M1, most of them major, in the 100-mile stretch between London and Coventry? Would it not be a useful contribution to road safety if at any time on the busiest section of our busiest road there were no more than three sets of road works?

Mrs. Chalker: If during the 1970s the then Government had undertaken the road works necessary on our motorways, we would not now be having to make up for lost time and making sure that we put in the necessary investment to preserve our motorways for the future. If we do not do that now, we shall have even more severe problems in future.

Mr. Snape: Does the Minister accept that had not the Government twice taken the decision during the lifetime of this Administration to increase heavy lorry weights it might not be necessary to cone off so many miles of motorway? Why is it necessary to cone off so many miles of motorway at weekends, when no work is taking place and the plant used for that work is put together in a comparatively small area of motorway? If a private firm is responsible for coning off Britain's motorways, is it paid so much per cone? Will the Minister consider launching a campaign to urge people to drive on the left on motorways rather than as so many motorists do, driving in the centre lane, to the fury and frustration of heavy goods vehicle drivers?

Mrs. Chalker: It is, of course, right that drivers should always move into the left when they can. Yesterday work took place on the M1, M40, M4 and a number of other major roads because companies are seeking to carry out that work as quickly as possible. The hon. Gentleman will no doubt have read of my right hon. Friend's decision to ensure that companies undertaking these major roadworks know what it costs to keep a lane closed, so that they are aware of the necessity to keep cones to the minimum, consistent with the safe move-over to a restricted area. If traffic is too suddenly taken into a restricted area, we can have accidents, which cause even more delay. However, we must get on with this work, and this year it is proceeding even faster than in the previous two years.

Bus Lanes

Mr. Peter Bruinvels: asked the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the Government's policy towards the introduction of bus lanes.

Mrs. Lynda Chalker: Bus lanes must be shown to give a net benefit to the community and their total local impact taken into account.

Mr. Bruinvels: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. Is she aware that bus lanes are a totally useless facility for the motorist, totally counter-productive, cause snarl-ups, and achieve the opposite to what they are supposed to achieve. They delay motorists trying to get to their place of work, and in council and city areas such as Leicester and the GLC they are supposed to deter motorists and encourage buses, although they achieve neither result.

Mrs. Chalker: I agree with my hon. Friend that where bus lanes have no net benefit to travellers across the area they cannot be in the interests of those travellers. That is why it is clearly not sensible to install bus lanes in a doctrinaire fashion. They must be properly designed and conceived if they are to succeed.

Ribblehead Viaduct

Mr. Dalyell: asked the Secretary of State for Transport if he has now given consideration to whether the Ribblehead viaduct on the Settle-Carlisle line qualifies for heritage funds; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. David Mitchell: The eligibility of projects for heritage funds is a matter for the organisations which control them. I have control over none of these bodies.

Mr. Dalyell: Is the Ribblehead viaduct any less of a monument to its age than, for example, Chatsworth? Will we simply allow it to crumble. This is quite apart from the value of the diversionary line from Scotland to England, which, presumably, will be more important if there is to be the east coast electrification?

Mr. Mitchell: It will be for British Rail to consider making an application at the appropriate time, when it knows the future of the Ribblehead viaduct, which is tied up with the decision—not yet taken—on the future of the Settle-Carlisle line. What the hon. Gentleman has said is absolutely reasonable and proper, but must be set in the context that there are eight listed or scheduled viaducts on that line.

Mr. Watson: When is the public inquiry into the Settle-Carlisle line likely to start, and will my hon. Friend confirm that that inquiry will be held under the auspices of the Yorkshire TUCC?

Mr. Mitchell: There will be two inquiries, one under each TUCC. I understand that one is likely to start early in the autumn and the other as soon as can be arranged. At present there is talk about the early spring, but I hope that it will be before then.

Mr. Maclean: Has my hon. Friend seen the report produced by the independent consultants, who have concluded that the phrase which can best be used to describe British Rail's policy on this line is "wanton neglect?" Nevertheless, that report concluded that the Ribblehead viaduct could be saved for the next 15 to 20 years at a cost of only £2·1 million. Does that not throw more doubt on yet another set of figures produced by British Rail?

Mr. Mitchell: The report to Cumbria county council was received only last Thursday. We need to consider it


as a whole and not take that part out of context. I have not had time to do so yet, but I assure my hon. Friend that all the points in the report will be fully taken into account.

Public Transport (Metropolitan Areas)

Mr. Thurnham: asked the Secretary of State for Transport what encouragement he is giving to district councils to take over the running of passenger transport services in metropolitan areas.

Mrs. Chalker: Once the new joint boards have been set up, we shall be prepared to consider proposals from metropolitan district councils to provide separate services and enter into arrangements with other operators in the public and private sectors.

Mr. Thurnham: Will my hon. Friend say on what basis the Government will judge applications by district councils to have more control over their local services?

Mrs. Chalker: I can only say to my hon. Friend that after the transfer of responsibilities of the metropolitan councils a district council that puts forward a proposal to the Secretary of State will have that proposal judged on its merits. I cannot say more than that at present.

Mr. Pike: When the Minister makes any decision about the future of transport in the metropolitan counties, will she take into account the difficulties that were encountered in those areas before the transport authorities were established, when municipal undertakings were running services along similar routes, at different fares, with great confusion? As a result of that situation the PTEs and PTAs were established to provide sensible and co-ordinated transport services for the conurbations.

Mrs. Chalker: As the hon. Gentleman knows from the consultation document, the PTAs are there. What happens in the future will be a matter to be considered on its merits. I note carefully what the hon. Gentleman says and will be taking that into consideration in any proposal that might come forward.

Seat Belts

Mr. Gareth Wardell: asked the Secretary of State for Transport if the full figures are now available for the first year of compulsory seat belt wearing to indicate the effects on car occupant casualty rates; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Sheerman: asked the Secretary of State for Transport what was the average wearing level for front seat belts during the first year of compulsory seat belt use; and what wearing rates have been recorded for fatal, serious and slight front seat car occupant casualties and for those where the injury severity was unknown.

Mrs. Chalker: Seat belt wearing rates have remained close to 95 per cent. throughout the first year. Among fatal and serious casualties, 75 per cent. were reported as wearing seat belts and 9 per cent. not. The remaining 16 per cent. were unknown. Wearing rates amongst slightly injured casualties are not yet available.
The latest figures for total casualty savings are still those published on 5 April last, covering the first 11 months of compulsory wearing. Compared with the previous year there has been a reduction of more than 7,000 fatal and serious front seat casualties.

Mr. Wardell: In view of the fact that more than 6,000 children are being injured each year in the rear seats of cars, are any steps being considered by the Government to provide for safer carriage of children in the rear seats of passenger vehicles?

Mrs. Chalker: The hon. Gentleman knows that I have considerable sympathy for his view. Parents are in the best position to know what is best for their children and the hon. Gentleman will appreciate the practical difficulties, from his own experience. I should like parents to take the advice contained in the leaflet "Child Safety in Cars" and, wherever possible, to restrain children by using a booster cushion and an adult belt in rear seats. But it is a matter for parents to decide what is best for their own children.

Mr. Moate: In view of the superb figures of casualty saving, would it not be a commendable exercise in humility if all those who opposed compulsory seat belt wearing were publicly to accept that they were wrong? Would it not be sad if we were to spend as long arguing about compulsory rear seat belt wearing as we did over front seat belts, when so many casualties have been avoided?

Mrs. Chalker: Nobody is more happy that I at the substantial reduction in fatalities, serious injuries and minor injuries. I must say to my hon. Friend that it is interesting how many letters have been sent to me by former opponents of compulsory seat belt wearing, thanking the House for passing the legislation and saving the lives of relatives and others. I am sure that the House will want to consider that effect if and when it considers a further measure.

British Rail (Productivity)

Mr. Gregory: asked the Secretary of State for Transport what progress has been made by British Rail in securing productivity gains.

Mr. David Mitchell: I understand from British Rail that labour productivity has gone up by 11 per cent. since 1979 and that further improvements are planned.

Mr. Gregory: I am sure that the House will find those comments extremely encouraging. However, how far has such improvement been hampered by secondary picketing as a result of the miners' dispute?

Mr. Mitchell: The losses on the freight side that British Rail is now suffering as a result of the miners' dispute are between £4 million and £5 million a week. That lost revenue will weaken the pace at which British Rail can carry out its modernisation investment programme.

Oral Answers to Questions — ATTORNEY-GENERAL

Civil Legal Aid

Mr. Dubs: asked the Attorney-General when he proposes to raise the eligibility level for civil legal aid.

The Solicitor-General (Sir Patrick Mayhew): Eligibility levels were last raised in November 1983, and will be reviewed again towards the end of this year.

Mr. Dubs: Does the Solicitor-General agree that it is right that eligibility levels should be reviewed at regular intervals, in line with inflation and the cost of litigation?


In the overall review of eligibility which the hon. and learned Gentleman is carrying out, will he bear in mind that when the civil legal aid scheme began in 1950, 80 per cent. of the population were eligible, and since then there has been such a significant narrowing in eligibility levels that many people who should be entitled to go to law cannot do so?

The Solicitor-General: It is the Government's policy that families and citizens on small and modest incomes should have legal aid at a cost that they can afford. There has been a practice of regular—and quite frequent—review and increase of eligibility levels. My right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor is proposing to review the levels at the end of the year.

Mr. John Mark Taylor: What prospects does the Solicitor-General have for those who wish to have legal aid to present their cases before tribunals?

The Solicitor-General: There is a considerable body of opinion that holds that certain tribunals should attract legal aid. On the other hand, successive Governments have not found it possible to extend legal aid to all tribunals. That is the present position, and I have nothing further to add.

Mr. John Morris: The Solicitor-General will recall the Attorney-General telling the House on 18 June that the interpretation of section 22 of the Legal Aid Act 1979
has proved to be very difficult and I have not yet reached a firm conclusion on it." — [Official Report, 18 June 1984; Vol. 62 c. 1.]
Has the Attorney-General now done so, and if his considered view is in line with what the court has decreed in the past will he advise the Secretary of State for Social Services not merely to suspend the transfer of information but to prohibit it in accordance with the terms of the Act?

The Solicitor-General: In case that question arises out of a question on the eligibility for legal aid, I can say to the right hon. and learned Gentleman that my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General is considering, with the Secretary of State, the implications of section 22 for Department of Health and Social Security work.

Grievous Bodily Harm (Charges)

Mr. Adley: asked the Attorney-General how many charges of grievous bodily harm have been considered by the Director of Public Prosecutions for the most recent convenient period.

The Attorney-General (Sir Michael Havers): Causing grievous bodily harm is not an offence that has to be reported to the Director of Public Prosecutions, but chief officers of police may refer cases to him if they need advice or assistance. In addition, other reportable cases may disclose possible offences of this nature, which are then considered by the director. In the week commencing 16 July 1984 the director considered five cases of causing grievous bodily harm, none of them connected with the mining dispute.

Mr. Adley: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that his last few words will cause surprise? Does he agree that most normal people are well aware that the National Union of Mineworkers is deliberately sending people around the country, who cause grievous bodily harm daily, which is seen nightly on our television screens by millions

of people? Is it not about time that those matters were referred to the Director of Public Prosecutions in the specific circumstances that are now upon us?

The Attorney-General: I do not think that my hon. Friend has quite understood my answer. I was asked about cases that had been considered by the director. In cases considered by the police, there have been 14 charges of grievous bodily harm arising from the troubles, and 235 cases of causing actual bodily harm.

Mr. Simon Hughes: Although this is unrelated to the miners' strike, can the Attorney-General give hon. Members guidance as to the way that we should proceed if, after charges such as grievous bodily harm have been made as a result of cases going to the DPP, other evidence comes to light between then and the trial that suggests that more severe charges should be made, but the DPP refuses to consider that other evidence? This has happened in a constituency case. This is an urgent matter and I should be grateful for general advice, but I shall write to the Attorney-General about this.

The Attorney-General: I cannot think of any case in which the DPP or any of his senior officials have refused to consider evidence. Such cases are always given the most careful attention, but I should like to have a letter from the hon. Gentleman and I shall look into the matter.

Mr. Cash: Can my right hon. and learned Friend confirm that there are a number of cases before magistrates' courts that are being unnecessarily held up? Will he be good enough to take such action as is necessary to speed things up?

The Attorney-General: The administration of justice at the magistrates' courts is a matter for the courts. The Lord Chancellor has power to appoint an additional stipendary if he is requested to do so by the petty sessional division. He does not do it off his own bat. As I understand it, it is proposed, as a result of the requests, to appoint three stipendary magistrates to assist with the work.

Mr. Ryman: I recognise that this question is not, strictly speaking, within the right hon. and learned Gentleman's ministerial responsibility. However, has he read the extraordinary speech last Friday by the chief constable of Warwickshire, in which he advocated that: the judiciary should alter its sentencing policy in respect of certain types of cases? If so, will the Attorney-General confirm that the prosecution is in no way concerned with the sentencing policy of the courts, which is entirely a matter for the judiciary?

The Attorney-General: I always admire the ingenuity of the hon. Gentleman in avoiding the strict principles. I did not read the speech, but I can confirm that no Government of any kind would ever seek to interfere with the complete independence of the judiciary, which includes sentencing policy.

Sir Nicholas Bonsor: How many prosecutions in general have arisen out of the miners' strike, and in particular what action has been taken regarding miners who have been threatened in their own homes? Is my right hon. and learned Friend satisfied that the law is adequately protecting those families?

The Attorney-General: I shall answer this question by referring to the number of charges, rather than prosecutions, because many of the cases have not yet been


brought before the courts. The courts have dealt with about 20 per cent. of over 4,000 arrests. The charges for arrest range from minor cases under the Public Order Act 1936 through to more serious ones. There have been 100 under the Conspiracy and Protection of Property Act 1875, which is the offence of besetting somebody's house. This is the intimidation charge, which I consider to be serious. There have also been 59 arrests for drunkenness, 164 for unlawful assembly, 112 for riot and 19 for affray. There is a wide range of charges, including many for theft, resisting arrest, offensive weapons and such like. I can be more specific, but I shall overrun my time.

Mr. John Morris: The Attorney-General referred to the deployment of three stipendiary magistrates. To which areas will they go, and, in particular, will they be considered for those mining areas where there is considerable disquiet as regards the working of the Bail Act?

The Attorney-General: I cannot tell the right hon. and learned Gentleman to which areas the stipendiary magistrates will go, because I would be guessing, although I think that one is to go to Rotherham. They are being allocated to assist the petty sessional courts in getting through this most unexpected increase in their work load. I make it clear that they will not deal only with mining cases, but with all cases. The view is taken that those who are not concerned in mining cases and awaiting trial should not be held up by what is going on now.

Riotous Assembly

Mr. Marlow: asked the Attorney-General when he last instigated proceedings under the law on riotous assembly.

The Attorney-General: Riot is not an offence which has to be reported to the Director of Public Prosecutions, but chief officers of police may refer cases to him if they need advice or assistance. The most recent occasion on which he has brought proceedings for riot was in September 1981. The charges arose out of an incident in south London, which also gave rise to even more serious charges of a reportable nature, one being murder. Charges of riot have been brought more recently by other prosecuting authorities.

Mr. Marlow: I am sure that my right hon. and learned Friend is aware that the overwhelming majority of our constituents believe that the law is pitifully inadequate in dealing with Scargill's intimidatory levies, who seem to be not only laughing at the law but stamping all over its grave. Will my right hon. and learned Friend give a commitment to the House that the Government will rapidly bring forward measures to ensure that perpetrators of mob violence of that sort can be adequately, rapidly, justly and firmly dealt with?

The Attorney-General: With one minor evidential exception about riots, the criminal law is adequate. It is an entirely different matter when one comes to finding the evidence which will justify proceedings.

Mr. Stokes: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May we have an extra five minutes on law and order and five minutes less on overseas development?

Mr. Speaker: No.

Oral Answers to Questions — OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATION

Development Aid (UN Target)

Mr. Stuart Holland: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will restore official development assistance to the 1979 level and set a date by which Her Majesty's Government will achieve the 0·7 per cent. United Nations' target.

The Minister for Overseas Development (Mr. Timothy Raison): Current plans for aid expenditure are set out in the most recent public expenditure White Paper, Cmnd. 9143. Like the previous Government, we are not prepared to set a date for the achievement of the 0·7 per cent. United Nations' target.

Mr. Holland: As this is the third time that we have raised the matter in recent days, the Minister is well aware that aid as a proportion of GNP is down to 0·35 per cent.—among the lowest of any European country. We do not even have a recognition of the problem or a wringing of hands. May we have some statement from the Minister about what he intends to do, or will he admit that he is now the Minister of Under-Development and resign?

Mr. Raison: Our figure of 0·35 per cent. is similar to the OECD average of 0·36 per cent. I stress that in the past two years the cash allocations for aid have more than kept pace with inflation.

Mr. Forman: Before agreeing to any United Nations figure, will my right hon. Friend give more urgent and necessary help to some of the drought-afflicted regions of Africa?

Mr. Raison: I am happy to say that the Government are contributing £1 million to the Famine in Africa appeal of the Disasters Emergency Committee, £350,000 to appeals from the League of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies, and a further £150,000 to the Africa appeal of the international committee of the Red Cross. I have also set aside a further £3 million for use as emergency and humanitarian relief, primarily through the voluntary agencies, and will offer 2,000 tonnes of bilateral food aid for distribution in Ethiopia by voluntary agencies.

Mr. Barnett: In view of the appalling situation that exists in part of Africa, we are grateful for that announcement. Will the right hon. Gentleman also take on board the fact that where he is able to channel money through voluntary organisations it often allows him to make that aid available to both sides in a dispute?

Mr. Raison: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his remarks about my statement. At the international conference on assistance to refugees in Africa, and by the increased support for the joint funding scheme, I have shown clearly over the past few weeks my support for the voluntary sector.

Mr. Lester: While accepting that percentage figures can cloak a lot of money, may I ask my right hon. Friend to give details of how great a percentage of our aid programme now goes to the poorest nations—which is the most effective use of aid—rather than the general figure?

Mr. Raison: I shall give my hon. Friend a precise figure, but I think that it is over 60 per cent. of our bilateral programme.

Third World

Mr. Deakins: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he makes of the effect of current interest rates on the development problems facing the Third world and of the impact thereon of the United Kingdom's aid programme.

Mr. Raison: The level of interest rates is an important and worrying influence on the prospects for those developing countries with major debt problems. The United Kingdom's aid programme cannot resolve major debt problems but supports development efforts in many countries, for example through balance of payments support.

Mr. Deakins: Is the Minister aware that a 1 per cent. increase in LIBOR rates means, for the 10 largest Third world debtors, an extra £3 billion a year in interest payments? Is it not time that someone in the Government—preferably the right hon. Gentleman—got to grips with the problem and tried to persuade the United States that its policies are working entirely against the Third world and all of its development plans?

Mr. Raison: Our views on the United States' budget deficit are well known. Our aid programme, with its strong emphasis on grant as opposed to loan, is much appreciated in the Third world, as it does not add to the debt burden of countries that receive our aid.

Mr. Latham: Should not the adjectives that my right hon. Friend used have been "ruinous and catastrophic" rather than "worrying"? Is it not time that the Government made much stronger representations to the Americans that their interest rates should be reduced?

Mr. Raison: The choice of adjectives is a matter for hon. Members. We have made it clear that we are deeply worried about the problem. I believe that our aid programme is doing everything possible to pick up some of the consequences of that.

Mr. Tom Clarke: Given that the figures that the Government have released are, according to the Government's method of calculation, the lowest since 1980, when they were the lowest since 1973, how can they possibly meet the increase in interest rates, far less achieve the United Nations' target?

Mr. Raison: May I say gently to Opposition Members that they should not believe all that they read in early-day motions. For example, early-day motion 955, which was recently tabled by Opposition Members, is frankly inaccurate in its statement of the amount of money that we are spending on the aid programme.

Mr. Stuart Holland: It is in the Minister's answer of 21 May.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Forth: Does my right hon. Friend agree that interest rates are no more and no less than the price of money which, even internationally, has competing uses? Must not those who borrow money be assumed to be aware of the conditions under which they borrow it?

Mr. Raison: I see my hon. Friend's point, but we must acknowledge that there have recently been fluctuations in the world economy which have caused severe problems for the developing world.

Mr. Benn: What proportion of the debts that are owed by the Third world to the developed world accrue from the purchase of arms? Are not American and other Western banks now carrying a heavy threat which derives from the fact that their Governments supply enormous quantities of arms, largely to repress the domestic population?

Mr. Raison: That is not a matter for me. The Overseas Development Administration programme is concerned entirely with civilian aid.

UNESCO (Ministerial Visit)

Mr. Bowen Wells: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what was the outcome of the Minister for Overseas Development's visit to the United Nations Educational Scientific and Cultural Organisation's offices.

Mr. Raison: In my visit to Paris on July 11, I discussed with the director general and others their reactions to the concerns expressed in my letter of 2 April. I also met the temporary committee set tip by the executive board. I stressed again that we shall be looking for significant indications of change by the end of 1984.

Mr. Wells: Has my right hon. Friend received the report of Peace and Community Endeavour to the United Nations parliamentary group, of which I have the honour to be chairman? What is his reaction to that report? Does he believe that UNESCO will make effective reforms, sufficient to retain the United Kingdom's subscription and support, by the end of the year?

Mr. Raison: I have indeed received the interesting report to which my hon. Friend refers. In regard to the extent to which there is progress in response to our proposals in UNESCO, I can only say that the executive board has set up a special committee to examine the matter. The director general has also set up five working groups. We shall have to wait and see whether they come up with effective proposals for reform.

Overseas Ministerial Visits

Mr. Kirkwood: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has to visit recipient countries during the summer adjournment.

Mr. Raison: Neither my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State nor I have any firm plans at present for visits to aid recipients during the recess.

Mr. Kirkwood: With regard to what the Minister said earlier about the Government's plans to finance aid to Ethiopia, Eritrea, Mozambique and other areas that are affected by drought, can I tempt him to spend his summer recess in the deserts of north-east Africa? The problem will obviously be worse during the summer and it would be advantageous to have a first-hand report from the Minister on his return.

Mr. Raison: I have made clear to the House on a number of occasions, including earlier this afternoon, the great seriousness with which I view the problems that afflict Africa at present. The hon. Gentleman can rest assured that my Department will do all it can to contribute towards a solution.

Lomé Convention

Mr. Ottaway: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he expects the renegotiation of the Lomé convention to be concluded.

Mr. Raison: It has been proposed that the next ministerial negotiating session should be in Luxembourg on 9 and 10 October, when it is hoped that the outstanding issues can be resolved. I am reasonably optimistic that the negotiations can be concluded well before the current convention expires on 28 February 1985.

Mr. Ottaway: Will the Minister tell me what progress has been made on trade issues and on opening up EC markets to developing countries?

Mr. Raison: Nothing like enough progress has been made on trade issues. My Government have been pressing hard for improved access to the Community for agricultural products and for more liberal rules of origin. So far we have not achieved the success that we would have wished to achieve, but we hope that if opportunities occur we shall be able to press the matter further.

British Rail (Electrification)

The following Question stood upon the Order Paper.

Mr. Archy Kirkwood: asked the Secretary of State for Transport if he is yet in a position to make a statement in response to British Rail's east coast main line submission.

The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Nicholas Ridley): I have written to the chairman of British Rail giving consent to the electrification of the east coast main line to Edinburgh via Newcastle, together with the branch to Leeds, at a cost of £306 million at 1983 prices, fourth quarter. My decision was based on a detailed and rigorous appraisal that showed the board's proposal to be justified on its financial merits.

Mr. Kirkwood: I welcome that decision, but does the Secretary of State accept that his method of announcing the decision, which was described by the chairman of British Rail as the most important investment announcement for 25 years, has been casual, to say the least? The decision was taken on Thursday, and the right hon. Gentleman could easily have announced it in a statement to the House on Friday or today before holding a press conference, as he did on Friday. Although I criticise the method of the announcement, the content of the decision will be warmly welcomed by everyone north-east of Hitchin.
I wish to ask the Secretary of State three brief questions.

Mr. Speaker: Order. As this is an extension of Question Time, three questions are too many.

Mr. Kirkwood: Is it true that the British Railways Board expects to get a real return of 7 per cent. on the investment? I recognise that the Government have not contributed any money for this purpose—the board must raise the money itself—but may we assume that the increase in productivity will he passed on to passengers and freight users of British Rail, through cheaper freight charges and rail fares that would otherwise have been the case?
Secondly, will the Secretary of State use his good offices to ensure that the electrification proposals are implemented at the Edinburgh end as well as the London end when the work starts?

Mr. Ridley: It is typical of the hon. Gentleman that when he is confronted with good news he can do nothing but cavil at the way in which it is announced. No discourtesy was intended. I planned to announce the decision in answer to his question today, as I have done. However, somehow journalists got hold of the story on Friday. [HON. MEMBERS: "A leak."] Yes, there was a leak. It is pointless to deny it, so I had no alternative but to announce the decision on Friday.
I confirm that the project has passed a 7 per cent. test discount rate, which is why it is commercial.
The hon. Gentleman's other questions are matters for the judgment of British Rail.

Mr. Stephen Dorrell: Is it not still a fact that this welcome decision shows that the Government are prepared to stand behind good investment proposals for British Rail? Is it not now incumbent on the management of and the unions working in British Rail to deliver the goods that they promised?

Mr. Ridley: My hon. Friend is right. It should be seen as a triumph for British Rail to have improved its productivity to the point where it can make this investment pay. I hope that it can make further improvements, for the benefit of passengers as well as taxpayers.

Mr. Robert Hughes: While welcoming this decision, which is long overdue, may I ask the Minister to tell us what consideration has been given, or will be given, to extending the east coast electrification to Aberdeen?

Mr. Ridley: The hon. Gentleman cannot sustain the argument that the decision is overdue. It is only a month since I received the submission from British Rail, which has not made an application for the further electrification of the line to Aberdeen.

Dr. Brian Mawhinney: Will my right hon. Friend accept the thanks of my constituents of all political parties for the decision that he has announced? Will he also accept the thanks of my constituents who are taxpayers for his insistence on getting the right proposal before acting?

Mr. Ridley: It is extremely pleasant that my hon. Friend recognises the importance of the decision. It should be welcomed by hon. Members on both sides of the House, but increased expenditure on infrastructure seems to be cavilled at by Opposition Members, whereas it is not by Conservative Members.

Mr. Merlyn Rees: Does the Secretary of State realise that to talk about a branch line from Doncaster to Leeds is to denigrate the most important city in Yorkshire? If he accepts that, should there not be an electrified link between York and Leeds, so that the line is electrified all the way round?

Mr. Ridley: I assure the right hon. Gentleman that there was no intention of demeaning the importance of Leeds — [HON. MEMBERS: "Or Doncaster."] If we become involved in a discussion about the rival merits of all northern towns, we shall be here for too long.

Mr. Alexander Pollock: Is my right hon. Friend aware that this news will be greeted with much relief by all concerned with the Government's commitment to a future rail network which adequately serves the needs north of the border? May I reinforce the plea that if this investment is successful, logically, in the fullness of time, we may look forward to further electrification extending to the north-east of Scotland?

Mr. Ridley: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his comments. The reason why the Government approved this investment was that it showed a good rate of return on the money invested. That will continue to be our criterion in deciding whether electrification is justified, and I do not want it to be taken as a green light for electrification everywhere, unless proposals can show a good rate of return as was the case this time.

Mr. Peter Snape: Does the Secretary of State accept that it is sadly typical of him that even when he is announcing good news he makes a cock-up of the procedure? [Interruption.] I had no idea that Conservative Members were so delicate about such matters. Why have we not yet seen the inter-city strategy report, of which this proposal was merely a small part? Can the Secretary of State guarantee the future of railway


workers at York, Crewe and Derby, so that they might benefit as a result of the announcement, or will their fate be similar to that of the workers at Shildon and Swindon, who, despite being praised for their productivity not too long ago, have now been give a ticket to the dole queue?

Mr. Ridley: It is typical of the hon. Gentleman that when he hears good news he makes a cock-up of receiving it. I confirm that the inter-city strategy has been received and approved and that British Rail will soon publish a copy which does not include commercially sensitive information. The report will be made available to hon. Members. I have not yet received the Railway Board's review of the future of BREL. I have told the chairman of British Rail that I would prefer him to get it right and to rationalise BREL rather than to hurry his proposals.

Unparliamentary Language

Mr. Tony Banks: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. During the exchange on Question No. 5 the hon. Member for Twickenham (Mr. Jessel) invited the Secretary of State for Transport to remove the posters on the back of London Regional Transport buses which now read, "GLC working for London" and replace them with posters reading, "GLC working for Moscow".
As a member of the GLC and of this House, I suggest that there is clear imputation in the hon. Gentleman's remarks that a Member of this House is acting in a treasonable fashion. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I ask you to invite the hon. Member to withdraw that unwarranted smear against myself and my colleagues at County Hall.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I hope that the hon. Member for Twickenham (Mr. Jessel) did not intend to impute any dishonourable motive to the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks). If he did, I am sure that he would wish to withdraw it.

Mr. Toby Jessel: As the Greater London council provides ratepayers' money to organisations which—

Mr. Speaker: Order. That is not an answer to the question that I asked the hon. Member. What I said was that if he imputed any disreputable motive to the hon. Member for Newham, North-West he would wish to withdraw it. I do not think that he did. I am simply giving him an opportunity to say so.

Mr. Jessel: There is, of course, nothing disreputable about the hon. Member for Newham, North-West. I am sure that if the effects of what he is doing are supported by Moscow, that is quite unintentional on his part.

European Community Budget (Refund)

Mr. George Foulkes (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (by private notice): asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the vote by the European Parliament on Friday 27 July to reject the rebate for Britain.

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Malcolm Rifkind): Our 1983 refunds, totalling £440 million, were agreed by European Heads of Government at the European Council in Stuttgart over a year ago. Two principal steps were needed before the refunds could be paid: approval by members states of the necessary implementing regulations and agreement by the European Parliament to transfer the sums concerned from the reserve chapter of the budget.
Two member states, France and Italy, made it clear after the Stuttgart meeting that they would approve the regulations only in the context of overall agreement in the negotiations on budgetary imbalances.
Following the agreement reached at Fontainebleau in June, France and Italy gave their agreement to payment of the refunds. The only remaining substantial step was for the European Parliament to approve the necessary transfer. This was done by the Budgets Committee of the Parliament on 12 July by a vote of 25 votes to nil with two abstentions. Following that vote, on 26 July the advisory committees of member states approved the necessary decisions actually implementing payment of the refunds on projects in the United Kingdom. All the procedures to enable the refunds to be paid had thus been completed.
As hon. Members know, the new Parliament held its first session last week. It decided to overturn the decision taken by the Budgets Committee and to hold up payment of the 1983 refunds.
There is no possible justification for the Parliament's petty and churlish action. Agreement on our refunds was reached at Stuttgart by all Heads of Government and was specifically endorsed by them at Fontainebleau. The Fontainebleau settlement itself met the Parliament's earlier conditions. There was no ground for new conditions being set. There was no ground for linking payment with the issue of the 1984 overrun, on which the Government have made positive proposals in conformity with the treaty and consistent with the own resources system.
The Parliament's inept behaviour will not affect the Government's attitude to discussions of the 1984 budget overrun, which will be resumed at the Budget Council on 6 September. It will, however, make the search for an agreement more, not less, difficult.
One of the most welcome conclusions of the Fontainebleau summit was that, in future, our refunds would be paid automatically on the revenue side of the budget. This would prevent similar difficulties from arising in the future. It may be for this reason that the European Parliament has been making difficulty over our 1983 refund, the last refunds in which it will be involved.
The Fontainebleau agreement set the Community's finances on a new and sounder basis. We have no quarrel with other member states, which are working with us to implement the Fontainebleau agreement. Hon. Members will have noted the statement of the French Government

criticising the European Parliament's action. When the European Parliament next meets in September, we trust that it will rethink its hasty, intemperate and damaging action. The President of the European Parliament has said that the eventual repayment of the refunds is not in doubt. That promise will have to be honoured.

Mr. Foulkes: Is it not clear from the Minister's amazing language and from the Government's extreme embarrassment that the Prime Minister's so-called agreement at Fontainebleau is a mirage? What do the Government plan to do to sort out the mess? Will they now agree to our proposal to withhold from our current contribution an amount equivalent to the refund due? I can repeat the assurance given by the Leader of the Opposition that we will co-operate fully with the necessary legislation.
If the Government will not do that, will they take action to ensure that the Heads of Government who agreed—or appeared to agree—the deal at Fontainebleau persuade their MEPs to honour the deal? What is the Government's view on referring the European Parliament's decision to the European Court, since the decision conflicts with the decision of the European Parliament's own Budget Committee, acting with powers, on 12 July?
Will the Government confirm that the agreement to increase VAT own resources, which the Prime Minister made at Fontainebleau, is hereby suspended until our rebate is paid?
Will the Minister confirm that the Government will take one of the courses of action that I have described; that they will take effective action, and not stand back mesmerised, pretending that agreement has been reached when the reality is quite different?

Mr. Rifkind: The hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes) attacks this agreement, but he seems to have forgotten the simple fact that the agreement was between Heads of Government and that to this day all Heads of Government have fully honoured the obligations into which they entered under that agreement. Indeed, the French Prime Minister was quoted in the press as describing the European Parliament's action as "wrong and disastrous".
The support of other European Governments is essential to ensure that the conclusion of Fontainebleau is fully satisfied. The hon. Gentleman and the House will recall that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister had exactly this problem in mind when she insisted that for the future any refunds due to the United Kingdom would be paid by an automatic reduction in our contributions in the following year. There will, therefore, be no possibility in any subsequent year of the European Parliament being involved in such a process. Precisely because of the experience of the last few days, my right hon. Friend was absolutely right to insist on that as an essential factor in the Fontainebleau agreement.
The hon. Member also asked about the legality of the decision by the European Parliament. I am not in a position to give a definitive opinion, but any legal challenge would undoubtedly take many months and have an uncertain outcome.
We certainly hope that other Governments will do what they can to bring home to their MEPs the need for the Parliament to honour the obligations, not simply of Fontainebleau but of the commitments that it entered when


it set conditions for the release of these funds. Now that the conditions are fully satisfied, the European Parliament suggests new conditions.
I confirm that there will be no question of the House being asked to ratify an increase in own resources while the refunds remain unpaid.

Mr. Geoffrey Rippon: May I commend the moderation of the Government's response to a dishonourable action? Bearing in mind that the Fontainebleau agreement will not be affected, does my hon. Friend agree that the real damage has been done to the European Assembly, its credibility and its reputation, and that it hardly deserves, even by courtesy, the description of a Parliament?

Mr. Rifkind: My right hon. and learned Friend's remarks are fully justified by the circumstances. I must emphasise that on this occasion the European Parliament laid down certain conditions which it insisted had to be satisfied before the refunds could be transferred. Those conditions were fully satisfied, and the European Parliament then chose to change the conditions. That was a dishonourable and despicable action to take.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: Do the Government believe that the European Assembly should have been given this power?

Mr. Rifkind: It is precisely because we believe that it is not able to use this authority in a responsible fashion that my right hon. and learned Friend has insisted, successfully, that in future it should have no such power.

Mr. Tony Marlow: As it is obvious that the main motive behind the Assembly's possible illegal action is a desire by European institutions to spend money which they do not have, and to which they are not legally entitled, will my hon. Friend give a commitment not to introduce measures to increase Community own resource until adequate mechanisms are in place to prevent overspending by the Community? In the interests of simplicity—so that the audience here and on the other side of the Channel may understand—will he give his answer in one word, yes or no?

Mr. Rifkind: I hope that my hon. Friend will forgive me if I decline that last invitation. The Government have already made it clear that any question of own resources is dependent on satisfactory conclusions being reached on budgetary discipline. That is a matter to which Finance Ministers have still to address themselves.

Mr. Russell Johnston: Is it not less than two months since we were being told that the Conservative Group in the European Parliament had enormous powers of persuasion, charismatic capacities and Messianic abilities of leadership? How is it that so quickly the butterfly has reverted to being a caterpillar? Further to the question asked by the right hon. Member for South Down (Mr. Powell), which the hon. Gentleman did not answer, does he agree that it is passing strange that an old Parliament should be encouraging a new one to be deferential to its Executive?

Mr. Rifkind: No one is seeking to persuade the European Parliament to be deferential to anyone. We are

simply expecting it to honour the obligations that it has entered into and carry out the commitments that it has promised.

Sir Anthony Meyer: As, once the sound of fury has died down, the task is to get the European Parliament to reverse its judgment, what does my hon. Friend think can be done to counteract the adverse effect on the opinion of other MEPs of the oafish behaviour of the British Socialist Members of that Parliament?

Mr. Rifkind: It is indeed a matter of misfortune that the Socialist Members of the European Parliament have made such a negative impact so far. I am bound to say in fairness, however, that on the matter with which this question is concerned the British Socialist Members voted with the British Conservative Members and that apart from the one representative of the Scottish National Party, all United Kingdom Members were against the proposals passed by the European Parliament.

Mr. Nigel Spearing: With reference to the powers of the Assembly, which were referred to by the right hon. Member for South Down (Mr. Powell), is the Minister not aware that they were surreptitiously given to the Assembly by this House on the evening of 8 December 1975 by extremely questionable procedural means which were fully outlined in the Adjournment debate of 16 March 1979? Is he further aware that on that occasion in 1975 there was no official spokesman from the then Conservative Opposition who could either assent to or dissent from the passage of that power? Does not the attitude of the Assembly show that every nation bar the United Kingdom is willing to fund agricultural expenditure as sky high as it wishes?

Mr. Rifkind: The power of the Parliament arises from the fact that Britain's refunds are at present dealt with as if they were additional parts of expenditure by the Community. Precisely for that reason we have insisted, and successfully reached agreement, that in future refunds will be paid by a reduction in our contribution.

Mr. Jim Spicer: Is it not a fact that, in spite of the overwhelming vote in the Budget Committee only a fortnight ago, the warning signs were clear that opinions in the new European Parliament were moving towards rejection? May we have an assurance that all possible steps were taken to persuade the other member Governments to use their best endeavours to get their Members to vote? If they did not do so on Friday, what guarantee can my hon. Friend give the House that their best endeavours will be used again between now and September? The European Parliament would understand that this is a crucial issue and that horrendous damage could flow from it.

Mr. Rifkind: My hon. Friend will be the first to understand that Members of the European Parliament must take full responsibility for the actions of which they have been the authors. I agree with my hon. Friend that the Budget Committee's conclusion, when no one voted against the proposal to transfer the resources, shows how phoney and artificial was the decision taken last Friday on spurious grounds to change an earlier decision.

Mr. Tony Benn: Despite what the Minister has told the House, do the Government intend to go on paying our contributions in the normal way from now on while this decision is still pending?

Mr. Rifkind: I have already emphasised that the British Government's disagreement and dispute is not with any other Member Government of the Community, and not with the Community itself. Our dispute is with the European Parliament, which has been the author of the disagreement.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: The Government have obviously given much thought to this matter since Friday. Can my hon. Friend say how he thinks the issue might be solved if, as is likely, the Common Market runs out of money before the so-called Parliament comes to a decision? Will he make it abundantly clear that the Government have not closed their mind to the possibility of withholding payments?

Mr. Rifkind: The Government have already made it clear that it is their view that the Community's expenditure this year should be within the legal ceiling laid down by the Committee. That is something that might not be thought agreeable by other member states, but if the Community is to impress the population of the member states as a whole of its seriousness in controlling Community expenditure, it must undertake to comply with the existing legal limits on spending.

Mr. Allan Rogers: The Minister has cast blame everywhere except upon himself. Will he accept a small measure of blame, especially in view of his critical stand in relation to his position today and his position on the Spinelli report earlier in the year, when he and his party made statements to the effect that they wanted to see an extension of the powers of the European Parliament? If there were that extension of powers, the authority of the European Parliament would be far greater than it is now. It ill-becomes the Minister to turn his head in the way that he has over the past couple of months.

Mr. Rifkind: The hon. Gentleman has achieved the rare feat of making two basic mistakes in one question. First, the Government have not supported the extension of the powers of the European Parliament as proposed by the Spinelli report. Secondly, I have not sought to blame everyone. I have deliberately excluded from blame all except those who took the decison last Friday. The only group responsible for the problem are Members of the European Parliament who last Friday voted in the way about which we complain.

Mrs. Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Can my hon. Friend explain to the House why it is that, as has been said, the Budget Committee of the old Parliament had power to act and vote as it did without anyone voting against it, yet the Socialist ex-President of the Assembly did not choose to sign the agreement, as he could have done?

Mr. Rifkind: My hon. Friend is correct. Once the Budget Committee has approved a proposal, the normal procedure is that the President of the Parliament certifies to the European Commission that the matter has been approved, and payment can be made forthwith. The President of the Parliament, on his own authority, chose to overturn the normal rules of procedure of the Parliament over which he presided until recently.

Mrs. Ann Clwyd: Will the Minister confirm reports that both his office and the Prime Minister's office made desperate telephone calls to Chancellor Kohl while he was on an autobahn in Germany last Thursday to ask him to use his influence with the Christian Democratic Group in the European Parliament, with which the British Conservative Group apparently has a strong understanding? As he plainly failed to get any sort of agreement with the Christian Democratic Group, will the Minister give us the gist of the conversation with Chancellor Kohl?

Mr. Rifkind: I am not aware of any conversations with Chancellor Kohl either by my own office or by No. 10 Downing street.

Mr. Eric Forth (Mid-Worcestershire): Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the dangers in a case such as this is over-reaction and that, by concentrating so much on the actions of a Parliament elsewhere, we are dignifying the matter with an importance that it does not necessarily have? The mere passage of time, if the Government stick to their guns in Community expenditure, will go a long way towards solving this problem.

Mr. Rifkind: My hon. Friend is correct, but I must emphasise that we are in the position of requiring the approval of the European Parliament for the payment of the refund. That step will not be necessary in future. My hon. Friend's comments show how correct we were to insist on the change.

Mr. Ron Leighton: Is it not the case that the summit communiqué was not laid before the House? Is it not the case also that a careful reading of that document shows the ambiguity of what was agreed? The communiqué spoke of steps taken to cover the 1984 budget, and on that assumption the rebate was agreed for this country. It was agreed that we would get some funds back if we paid more in; in other words, that we should pay for our rebate. Is it not clear that there is no discipline and control over the budget, that agricultural spending is still completely out of control and that the Fontainebleau agreement will not represent a permanent settlement of this matter? Is it not clear that, once again, the Government have ended up with egg on their face and that the only way to obtain justice is to withhold that which is justly ours?

Mr. Rifkind: The hon. Gentleman is incorrect. In earlier comments I quoted the remarks of the French Prime Minister. The hon. Gentleman will remember that the French had the Presidency at Fontainebleau. The French Prime Minister has described the European Parliament's decision as "wrong and disastrous". His comments are similar to ours.

Mr. Edward Heath: Does my hon. Friend agree that the main objective in this case must be to find an acceptable solution to the financial problems of the Community? As he has just stated that, to obtain that solution, it is necessary to have the approval of the European Parliament, does he agree that we are least likely to influence the other Members of the European Parliament by abusing their apparently perfectly legal action? Is my hon. Friend aware that to obtain a solution to this problem the actions of Governments as well as of the Parliament are required? That means that we must no longer remain isolated in solving the problems of the Community's finances this year, as we were at the


ministerial meeting. Will my hon. Friend advise those who are taking the decisions that the Government should show that they are prepared to accept a reasonable solution to the annual problem and then try to influence the European Parliament to approve our refund?

Mr. Rifkind: I listened carefully to my right hon. Friend's remarks. I must express some disappointment at the fact that he has not chosen to express any criticism of the way in which the European Parliament has used what might be its legal power on this occasion. The simple fact is that the European Parliament laid down certain conditions for the release of those funds. Those conditions were more than fulfilled. The European Parliament then chose to change the conditions. I believe that the House and the Government are entitled to express strong disagreement at and disapproval of that action. I am bound to say that as strongly as I can.
I agree, however, with my right hon. Friend that it is essential to ensure that the problem of the finances of the Community overall is properly resolved this year. The Government have seen how the original request by the Commission for an increase in supplementary funding this year has been reduced by almost exactly half during the past month or so. We believe that the Commission should make further efforts to reduce any overspend to a far smaller amount. Only when it is clear that there is no room for any further savings will it be necessary to consider the appropriate action.

Airline Competition Policy

Mr. John Prescott: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 10, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
the report of the Civil Aviation Authority on airline competition policy.
The matter is specific as it concerns the damage that is being done to our civil aviation industry and airport operations and the national and international concern about route distribution. That damage and concern have been caused by the Government's refusal to make their position clear. The matter specifically concerns the intense and damaging speculation about the Government's intentions, including unprecedented and highly political damaging attacks which the chairman of the Civil Aviation Authority has made on the chairman of British Airways, a public sector industry.
The matter is important because considerable damage is being caused to the British aviation industry by the Government's dithering and refusal to make a statement on the report with major implications involving thousands of redundancies and the restructuring of flight movements at our airports — before the decisions are made and impelemented in summer, as the Secretary of State has said this afternoon. A civil war of vested interests is occurring between different British airlines and different British airports, benefiting no one except the foreign airlines and the advertising revenues of national newspapers.
British aviation is one of our most successful industries and is now racked with uncertainty and financial doubts among and about the operators arising directly from the Government's prevarication. The CAA report proposes fundamental changes to the industry's structure. It is essential, in the interests of the industry and of the country, that there should be a debate on this matter as a matter of urgency. I therefore urge you, Mr. Speaker, to agree that this is a matter that should have precedence today so that Parliament can debate the Government's intentions.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he thinks should have urgent consideration, namely,
the report of the Civil Aviation Authority on airline competition policy.
I have listened carefully to what the hon. Member has said, but I regret that I do not consider that the matter he has raised is appropriate for discussion under Standing Order No. 10 and, therefore, I cannot submit his application to the House.

Local Government (Interim Provisions) Bill

Lords amendments considered.

Dr. John Cunningham: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. My point of order involves how we should proceed on some of the amendments which the House is to be asked to approve this afternoon. I seek clarification before the House votes on these matters.
On 24 July 1984 the Secretary of State for the Environment announced that he would seek powers in the main GLC abolition Bill—not yet published—to take powers retrospectively to annul any financial transaction of which he disapproved by the GLC, and presumably by the metropolitan counties, with the boroughs. The amendments which we are asked to consider include unprecedented penal sanctions against councillors. These sanctions would give the power to disbar people from public office for life.
Apparently, the Secretary of State is proposing that the House should be asked to approve those powers without knowing in detail what he has in mind. His statement was vague and referred to arrangements requiring his retrospective consent. Because the GLC and the metropolitan counties can make lawful financial arrangements without consent, a retrospective requirement of consent should not apply. The effect of the measure would be that the Secretary of State would have the right to determine retrospectively which transactions he approved or disapproved. That is a second unprecedented power. It is interesting to note that the European Convention on Human Rights outlaws retrospective penal legislation. If the Secretary of State is not falling foul of the letter of that convention, he is certainly coming close to doing so.
During consideration of the 1978 Finance Bill the Chief Secretary to the Treasury in the present Administration said that retrospective legislation was destructive of civilised life.
Why I say that this is destructive of civilised life is because in an ordered society we are all surely entitled to proceed in the certitude that the law is as it is declared at the present moment of time and that it is not going to be altered, capriciously and retrospectively, to attach to our actions a consequence which we could not have foreseen." — [Official Report, Standing Committee A, 6 June 1978, c. 717–78.]
That is a very important statement, and it neatly encapsulates what the Secretary of State is now apparently proposing. He is asking the House to approve amendments which will lead to the possibility of people being barred from public office for life for actions which they take in the ensuing weeks and months which may be perfectly lawful at the time they are taken but which he will give himself powers in his major Bill to deem retrospectively unlawful.
That again is an unprecedented act by any Government of any political persuasion, and I ask that the House should have the matter clarified before we proceed to discuss and vote on these amendments.

Mr. Speaker: I listened with care to what the hon. Gentleman said on this important matter. I do not think that it is a matter for me. It is one for the Government. Has the Secretary of State any comment to make about it?

The Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Patrick Jenkin): The hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) has misdescribed—if I may so put it—the proposal that I made in a written reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Shersby), but perhaps I can set the hon. Gentleman's mind at rest. At a suitable point in our debates—and I suspect that it may arise on the second Lords amendment or on the amendments dealing specifically with counter-obstruction measures—I shall be perfectly prepared to defend and to describe, the proposal that I put to the House on 24 July. Technically and strictly speaking it does not arise on this Bill, but I accept the point made by the hon. Gentleman that it is part of the general measures which we are having to take following the wildly irresponsible behaviour of the GLC and some of the other metropolitan authorities. [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman has not got it right. No question of disqualification will arise under this provision and, at the appropriate time, I shall be happy to describe and defend my proposal.

Dr. Cunningham: Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Order. There is no point of order that can arise on this. The hon. Gentleman may respond to the Secretary of State, but there is no point of order for me to decide.

Dr. Cunningham: I always raise points of order in the Chamber with great reluctance, but what the Secretary of State has said has alarmed me and my hon. Friends even more. He appeared to be saying that he would give an assurance in the House that no elected councillor would be removed and barred from public office for life as a result of any of the right hon. Gentleman's retrospective decisions.
With respect, that assurance is not worth the paper on which it is written, and the right hon. Gentleman knows that perfectly well. The effect of his proposals would be to give statutory force to retrospective powers in the hands of the Secretary of State and his successors to deem unlawful decisions which then had consequences for the people who had made those decisions. The right hon. Gentleman has confirmed that in responding to my point of order.

Mr. Jenkin: Again the hon. Gentleman is wrong. I suggest that it is not very satisfactory that the matter should be discussed on a point of order. I am prepared and had intended to deal with it in later debates.
The only proposal is that we gave notice, as has been done frequently, including in legislation passed by a Labour Government——

Mr. Jack Straw: Would the right hon. Gentleman care to deal with tax avoidance?

Mr. Jenkin: I am perfectly prepared to quote a number of other examples which have nothing to do with tax avoidance.
If an abolition authority makes payments to a borough council or a district council, the purpose of the notice is to say that the main abolition Bill will contain a provision that, if that has been done without my consent, I may require the recipient council to repay the sum that has been paid to it. I shall justify that. I shall justify it by reference to legislation which a Labour Government put before the


House. In the face of all the evidence of the grossly irresponsible financial shenanigans currently going on at county hall and elsewhere, I stand firmly by the view that for the defence of ratepayers and for the defence of the successor authorities, regrettably this measure is essential.

Mr. Alan Beith: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Although the matter raised by the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) is extremely important, I recognise that it presents you with difficulties in dealing with it. I suggest that there are ways in which we could deal with it. There are matters arising which ought not be dealt with in the way that the Secretary of State described—in debates on later amendments in the Bill — but ought to be considered before we consider the details of the Bill itself.
I put it to you, Mr. Speaker, that there are two ways in which we could accommodate this difficulty. One would be to suspend the sitting for a period to enable some formal exchange of information and to enable the Secretary of State to take further advice—I think that he needs further advice. The other is that we table a motion to adjourn consideration of the Lords amendments while we resolve this matter. Arguments could be advanced why consideration of the Lords amendments should be postponed until we have resolved this question of retrospective legislation. Therefore, I wonder whether you would be open to the suggestion that an hon. Member might move such a motion.

Mr. Speaker: I am not prepared to do that at this stage.
We must move to consider Lords amendment No. 1. I draw attention to the fact that it is on a very narrow point about whether the procedure for naming an appointed day should be by means of an affirmative resolution. It will not be appropriate to raise wider issues on this narrow point. However, I shall be prepared to allow a wider debate on Lords amendment No. 2, which deals with the major issue of the Bill.

Clause 1

COMMENCEMENT AND TERMINATION OF INTERIM PROVISIONS

Lords amendment: No. 1, in page 2, line 8, leave out
order shall be made under subsection (2) above
and insert
such order shall be made

Mr. Jenkin: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
The guidance which you, Mr. Speaker, have been kind enough to give the House is extremely helpful, and I shall respond by moving this first motion briefly.
The Government introduced what is now Lords amendment No. 1 in another place to meet a wish which we recognised, that Parliament should be involved with the bringing into effect of part II of the paving Bill.
As the House knows, the Government have maintained throughout our very firm position that this paving Bill should in no way prejudge Parliament's consideration of the main abolition Bill, which I hope and intend to present to Parliament in the late autumn. From the date of the first print of the paving Bill we included the provision for a commencement order. The House will remember that on

Second Reading I made it clear that we would not make this commencement order until the House had agreed to the principle of abolition by giving the main Bill a Second Reading.
It was argued during the Second Reading and Committee stages, both in this House and in the other place, that not everyone considered this to be a sufficient constitutional safeguard. In another place it was said that merely to have the Second Reading in the House of Commons as the trigger seemed to show scant respect for another place.
The Government introduced what is now Lords amendment No. 1, in response to such concern. The amendment makes the commencement order subject to affirmative resolution of both Houses of Parliament and so ensures that both Houses of Parliament will have the opportunity for further debate before part II of the Bill is activated.
I would make the point in our defence against the charge of not introducing this into the Bill in the first instance that the step is somewhat unusual. It is not usually held to be necessary that an order that merely brings into effect provisions that have been fully and recently approved by Parliament should be subject even to negative resolution procedure.
Nevertheless, we recognise the constitutional aspect of the legislation and the genuine concern expressed on both sides of the House and in another place. I am sure that the Government are right to respond to that by introducing Lords amendment No. 1, which proposes that the commencement order shall be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure in both Houses of Parliament.

Mr. Beith: The Secretary of State is right in pointing out that commencement orders are not usually subject to parliamentary procedures, let alone the affirmative procedure that is required by the Lords amendment. We should recognise the importance of the amendment, but that the shortcomings of the procedure will remain.
In recent years the House has not had a satisfactory way of dealing with delegated legislation — the statutory instruments by which Bills such as this are brought into force. Commencement orders are frequently not subject to procedure, and the orders that are subject to negative procedure have the most cursory and limited scrutiny. I had something to say about that a few days ago in a debate on another Bill. The House has a guaranteed opportunity to vote upon or debate only when the order requires the affirmative procedure. The other place was right to be concerned as it would be in relation to any Bill, because it is wrong in principle that Ministers should legislate without the legislature being able to challenge them for their actions. That is one of the great weaknesses of the procedure of the House, especially the Chamber, as opposed to the other place whose procedures are slightly better than ours in this respect. We are fortunate that the Bill has been subjected to scrutiny in the other place.
The importance of tightening up the commencement procedure is much greater in this case because the Bill depends entirely upon the passage of a later Bill for its stated purpose to be carried out. We do not know whether the House will pass that Bill. Who kows what lines of banana skins stretch out before the Government between now and then, or what opportunities will arise to change dramatically the political composition of the House. The Bill relies heavily upon what will happen in a subsequent


measure. If the later Bill to abolish the metropolitan counties does not go according to plan — this Bill certainly has not—for example, in another place, the steps that have been taken will be irrelevant.

Mr. Harry Cowans: The hon. Gentleman is not making his case as boldly as he should do, and as he usually does. The case will be worse than he describes. The Bill presumes that the House will pass the next Bill, although the House has not seen dot or comma or it. If the later Bill is not passed, this Bill is nonsense.

Mr. Beith: The hon. Member for Tyne Bridge (Mr. Cowans) is absolutely right. Some hon. Members have heard the arguments go round and round, and perhaps we understate them. We should state clearly time and again that it is a constitutional monstrosity to discuss a commencement order that will bring into effect a Bill of which we have no sign, detail or picture. Parliament should not be treated in this way, nor should legislation be made in such a way; still less should the constitution and the distribution of power between central and local government be determined in such a way. That is why the commencement order is of unusual importance, and should be subject to parliamentary scrutiny.
It was open to the other place to press for a negative procedure, and for a commencement order to be subject to annulment by either House. We all know how absurd that is. If an order is subject to annulment, one might have the opportunity, if a prayer is tabled against the order, to debate it between 10 pm and 11.30 pm. On the other hand, the Government might not allow discussion on the Floor of the House, in which case the matter would be debated in Committee. If there is a debate in Committee, the vote will be of no effect. A negative vote in Committee is not formally reported to the House.
Many hon. Members still overlook the fact, however many times it may be stated, that we cannot secure a vote on the procedure on the Floor of the House.

Mr. Simon Hughes: It is even more bizarre in this case that reports have been published today informing us that the Secretary of State will make an announcement tomorrow about the future legislation. Before we have heard that announcement or even, as the hon. Member for Tyne Bridge (Mr. Cowans) has said, seen the legislation we are being asked to deal with the procedure for implementing the Bill before us. I hope my hon. Friend agrees that logic must dictate that the Government should make a statement before debating the procedures this afternoon.

Mr. Beith: My hon. Friend is right. It stands logic on its head to talk about commencement arrangements for legislation that depends on another Bill, about which the Secretary of State may tell us tomorrow. That is all the more reason for us to tighten up the procedures.
What has the other place managed to achieve for us by building into the legislation in Lords amendment No. 1 that the commencement order shall be subject to affirmative resolution of both Houses of Parliament? That is a great improvement as far as it goes. It ensures that both Houses of Parliament must vote on the matter. That is the difference between the way in which the affirmative and negative procedures work. Even if a matter is taken in Committee—heaven forbid that that should happen in

this case—it must be brought back to the Floor of the House for a vote. Hon. Members are probably aware that such votes appear mysteriously on the Order Paper, as a result of debates in Committee on statutory instruments.
We would expect a debate on the Floor of the House, rather than in Committee, on the commencement order under clause 1, but there is no requirement that the Government should provide much time for debate. They must provide only one and a half hours in which to debate whether to bring into force provisions to get rid of the basic essentials of democracy, of local authorities, which the Government have not decided to abolish. That is not adequate.
Although I welcome the efforts to improve the Bill, that were made in another place—probably as far as it could go in amending clause 1 — we shall not have an adequate safeguard against the constitutional absurdity of Commencement procedures for a Bill that is contingent upon another Bill.
We must also recognise that, if a commencement order comes before the House under the affirmative procedure and we debate it for one and a half hours, it will still not be susceptible to amendment. There is no provision for hon. Members to amend the order. Amendments may be tabled to a few kinds of statutory instruments, of which the order before us is not one.
On the face of it, it may seem unnecessary to amend an order for the date of commencement. But let us consider what quagmire we may be in, and what chaos and confusion might befall the legislation. It is arguable that dates on the commencement order could be inappropriate for the GLC or some of the metropolitan authorities. The order may be more complex than usual, and refer to more than one date, and may affect the GLC and the metropolitan counties in different ways. It is likely that hon. Members will try to amend the order to modify the dates.
I speak not just from the point of view of the political leaders of local authorities, who are firmly and resolutely against the enactment of the legislation, are fighting a hard battle and whose views might be conditioned by their continuing determination to stop the Bill from being carried through, but also from the point of view of responsible professional local government officers, upon whom we all lean for advice at different times on what is happening in practice. Most of them are frightened by the technical difficulties into which the legislation is likely to fall. It is on the basis of their experience and the problems that will confront them that I feel that when the commencement order is brought before us, we might need to seek to amend it.
I would not be at all surprised to receive representations from the organisations representing chief officers of local authorities or from the officers of various local authorities, calling for an adjustment of the date or some of the other detailed and specific provisions of the commencement order. What are we to say to them then? That the House of Commons has no procedure for amending, adjusting or altering the commencement order? We will say, "Thanks to the Lords amendment we are somewhat better off. The matter will come before the House of Commons and we can vote, but that is all that we can do. We can only vote, take or leave it." There is a group of people to whom that will present an especial difficulty. That group of people has been going through many difficulties of late. I refer to those on the Government Back Benches who have deep


and genuine reservations about the Bill. That also applies to those in another place. They have been prepared to stand up and pursue their objections. Some Back Benchers do not object to the principle of abolishing the GLC or the metropolitan counties, but they have genuine and detailed reservations. They are the very people who might want to say, "All right, we go along with the Government. We shall support the general abolition, but all the advice that we are getting is that the Government have made a mess of it, and we must adjust the commencement date and make a detailed adjustment to the way that the provision is being carried out, or we shall finish up in a worse position than the one in which we started." That thread of argument has been common to speeches by Government Back Benchers in this Chamber and in another place. They suggest that there are particular and detailed objections to the Bill that arise not from total opposition to its intentions and basic provisions. I do not want this to come as a surprise to those people, which is why I underline it now. They will find that there is nothing that they can do to the commencement order.
It is therefore deeply unsatisfactory that once again we should place heavy reliance on the House of Commons's grossly inadequate means of dealing with delegated legislation. Even if we take the best of a bad job and the best of the possibilities for dealing with such legislation — the affirmative procedure — I contend that it is inadequate, particularly in relation to such a Bill, because of the Bill's constitutional importance and the constitutional absurdity of our making provisions to abolish elections to authorities that we have not as a House decided to abolish.

Mr. Straw: Lords amendment No. 1 is better than what preceded it, but like the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith), I believe that it is not the best amendment.
It was a constitutional outrage that the Bill should come to the House as originally drafted. Of that there is no doubt. It is indicative of the cavalier way in which the Secretary of State treats the liberties of the House and the British people that this relatively minor concession was not volunteered but forced out of the Government only after pressure from the other place and a great deal of public opposition to what the Government seek to do in this part of the Bill, as in so much of the rest of it.
In our view there should be no need for such an order because there should be no need for any such Bill. There is no precedent for an interim provisions Bill. Every previous reorganisation of local government has proceeded with a main Bill, and the interim provisions tying the old authorities into the new ones have been contained in the main Bill, and not come into force until the main Bill has passed through all its stages in both Houses of Parliament. I hope that the Secretary of State will remember that when he seeks to argue, as he no doubt will on Lords amendment No. 2, that there is a precedent for cancelling elections before other authorities take over from an outgoing authority. There is no precedent for any of the measures in this interim provisions Bill because there has never been an occasion when a Government have been so desperate to whip away and steal the democratic rights of citizens in the towns and cities of this country that

they do not even have the democratic decency to develop their ideas in detail and put them before both Houses prior to introducing such measures and having them passed.
Reference has been made to the fact that there is very little detail of what the main Bill, which will be the trigger for the orders in clause 1(4), will contain. The Secretary of State has promised ad nauseam that there will be a consultative document about the services that are to be taken over by joint boards and those that are to be transferred to districts. He gave an undertaking that that document would be published before the summer recess. We read in The Guardian this morning—I am glad to know that the newspapers were told before the House was told——

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. William Waldegrave): The hon. Member told the newspapers.

Mr. Straw: The Parliamentary Under-Secretary thinks that the newspapers were told by me. It is not my briefing. The Guardian reports a comment by me. If the Secretary of State wishes to hear my comment, I am happy to quote it. It was reported that I said:
that Mr. Jenkin did not have 'a dog's chance' of getting the legislation through in time for the abolition of the authorities by April 1986. 'Even so, it is not a durable set-up, and it won't last. And even if there is a Thatcher Reich for a thousand years, they will still have to change it.'
That is my prediction. However, possessed of a great deal of knowleedge as I am, I do not have the mind of the Secretary of State—I am pleased about that. It was not I who told The Guardian of the Secretary of State's intention to publish the consultative document tomorrow. Of that I assure him. I dare say that the Secretary of State or his press officer told The Guardian. He told the House only that it would be published before the recess. It was inappropriate and wrong of him not to publish the document in good time for today's debate. If it is ready to be published tomorrow, it was ready to be published last Thursday or Friday.

Mr. Tony Banks: The Government are hiding it from us.

Mr. Straw: That is so. The Government are ashamed of virtually every aspect of this policy. They wish to skulk in their tents to ensure that it is scrutinised as little as possible. I am sure that it is for that reason that they chose to publish the document tomorrow, no doubt in answer to a written question, in time-honoured fashion, to make sure that the information slips out and publicity is avoided. If that is the Secretary of State's intention, it will not be carried out because we shall scrutinise the document. I wonder what was going through his mind when he decided to publish it not on Thursday or Friday, to make sure that we had a proper opportunity to scrutinise it because it is relevant to today's debate, but tomorrow.
None the less, as I and others have said, the amendment is an improvement to a thoroughly disreputable Bill. We shall not vote against it.

Question put, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment:—

The House divided: Ayes 278, Noes 12.

Division No. 452]
[4.38 pm


AYES


Adley, Robert
Amess, David


Alexander, Richard
Ancram, Michael


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Ashby, David






Aspinwall, Jack
Gow, Ian


Atkins, Rt Hon Sir H.
Gower, Sir Raymond


Atkins, Robert (South Ribble)
Grant, Sir Anthony


Atkinson, David (B'm'th E)
Gregory, Conal


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Vall'y)
Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)


Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)
Grist, Ian


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Ground, Patrick


Batiste, Spencer
Grylls, Michael


Berry, Sir Anthony
Gummer, John Selwyn


Best, Keith
Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)


Bevan, David Gilroy
Hampson, Dr Keith


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Hanley, Jeremy


Biggs-Davison, Sir John
Hannam, John


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Harris, David


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Harvey, Robert


Bottomley, Peter
Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Hawkins, C. (High Peak)


Bowden, A. (Brighton K'to'n)
Hawkins, Sir Paul (SW N'folk)


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Hayes, J.


Boyson, Dr Rhodes
Hayhoe, Barney


Braine, Sir Bernard
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Heddle, John


Bright, Graham
Henderson, Barry


Brinton, Tim
Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael


Brittan, Rt Hon Leon
Hickmet, Richard


Brooke, Hon Peter
Hill, James


Brown, M. (Brigg &amp; Cl'thpes)
Hind, Kenneth


Browne, John
Hirst, Michael


Bruinvels, Peter
Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)


Bryan, Sir Paul
Holland, Sir Philip (Gedling)


Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon A.
Holt, Richard


Buck, Sir Antony
Hooson, Tom


Budgen, Nick
Hordern, Peter


Butterfill, John
Howard, Michael


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Howarth, Alan (Stratf'd-on-A)


Cash, William
Howell, Ralph (N Norfolk)


Chalker, Mrs Lynda
Hubbard-Miles, Peter


Chapman, Sydney
Hunt, David (Wirral)


Chope, Christopher
Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas


Clark, Hon A. (Plym'th S'n)
Irving, Charles


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Jackson, Robert


Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick


Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)
Jessel, Toby


Colvin, Michael
Jones, Robert (W Herts)


Cope, John
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Cranborne, Viscount
Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith


Critchley, Julian
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine


Crouch, David
Key, Robert


Currie, Mrs Edwina
King, Rt Hon Tom


Dickens, Geoffrey
Knight, Gregory (Derby N)


Dicks, Terry
Knight, Mrs Jill (Edgbaston)


Dorrell, Stephen
Lamont, Norman


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.
Lang, Ian


Durant, Tony
Latham, Michael


Dykes, Hugh
Lawler, Geoffrey


Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)
Lawrence, Ivan


Eggar, Tim
Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel


Emery, Sir Peter
Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)


Eyre, Sir Reginald
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark


Fallon, Michael
Lester, Jim


Favell, Anthony
Lewis, Sir Kenneth (Stamf'd)


Fenner, Mrs Peggy
Lightbown, David


Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey
Lilley, Peter


Fletcher, Alexander
Lloyd, Ian (Havant)


Fookes, Miss Janet
Lloyd, Peter, (Fareham)


Forman, Nigel
Lord, Michael


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Luce, Richard


Forth, Eric
Lyell, Nicholas


Fowler, Rt Hon Norman
McCrindle, Robert


Fox, Marcus
McCurley, Mrs Anna


Franks, Cecil
MacGregor, John


Fraser, Peter (Angus East)
MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire)


Freeman, Roger
MacKay, John (Argyll &amp; Bute)


Fry, Peter
Maclean, David John


Gardiner, George (Reigate)
McQuarrie, Albert


Gardner, Sir Edward (Fylde)
Madel, David


Glyn, Dr Alan
Major, John


Goodhart, Sir Philip
Malins, Humfrey


Goodlad, Alastair
Malone, Gerald


Gorst, John
Maples, John





Marland, Paul
Sims, Roger


Marlow, Antony
Skeet, T. H. H.


Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)


Mates, Michael
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Maude, Hon Francis
Speller, Tony


Mawhinney, Dr Brian
Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)


Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Mayhew, Sir Patrick
Squire, Robin


Mellor, David
Stanbrook, Ivor


Merchant, Piers
Steen, Anthony


Mills, Iain (Meriden)
Stern, Michael


Miscampbell, Norman
Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)


Moate, Roger
Stevens, Martin (Fulham)


Monro, Sir Hector
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


Montgomery, Fergus
Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)


Moore, John
Stewart, Ian (N Hertf'dshire)


Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)
Stokes, John


Mudd, David
Stradling Thomas, J.


Murphy, Christopher
Tapsell, Peter


Neubert, Michael
Taylor, John (Solihull)


Newton, Tony
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Normanton, Tom
Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman


Norris, Steven
Temple-Morris, Peter


Oppenheim, Phillip
Thatcher, Rt Hon Mrs M.


Osborn, Sir John
Thomas, Rt Hon Peter


Ottaway, Richard
Thompson, Donald (Calder V)


Page, Sir John (Harrow W)
Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)


Page, Richard (Herts SW)
Thorne, Neil (Ilford S)


Patten, John (Oxford)
Thurnham, Peter


Pattie, Geoffrey
Trippier, David


Pawsey, James
Trotter, Neville


Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Twinn, Dr Ian


Percival, Rt Hon Sir Ian
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Pollock, Alexander
Viggers, Peter


Powell, William (Corby)
Waddington, David


Powley, John
Wainwright, R.


Price, Sir David
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Proctor, K. Harvey
Waldegrave, Hon William


Raffan, Keith
Walden, George


Rees, Rt Hon Peter (Dover)
Waller, Gary


Renton, Tim
Ward, John


Rhodes James, Robert
Wardle, C. (Bexhill)


Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas
Warren, Kenneth


Ridsdale, Sir Julian
Watson, John


Rifkind, Malcolm
Watts, John


Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)
Wheeler, John


Roe, Mrs Marion
Whitfield, John


Rossi, Sir Hugh
Whitney, Raymond


Rost, Peter
Wiggin, Jerry


Rowe, Andrew
Wilkinson, John


Ryder, Richard
Wood, Timothy


Sackville, Hon Thomas
Woodcock, Michael


Sayeed, Jonathan
Yeo, Tim


Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Shelton, William (Streatham)



Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Shersby, Michael
Mr. Robert Boscawen and Mr. Tim Sainsbury.


Silvester, Fred





NOES


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Skinner, Dennis


Bruce, Malcolm
Wainwright, R.


Cox, Thomas (Tooting)
Wigley, Dafydd


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)



Kennedy, Charles
Tellers for the Noes:


Kirkwood, Archy
Mr. A. J. Beith and Mr. John Cartwright.


Penhaligon, David

Question accordingly agreed to.

New Clause

SUSPENSION OF ELECTIONS AND EXTENSION OF TERMS OF OFFICE

Lords amendment: No. 2, leave out clause 2 and insert the following new clause—
2.—(1) No ordinary elections of councillors of the Greater London Council or for a metropolitan county shall be held after the coming into force of this Part of this Act; and any such councilor—

(a) whose term of office would, apart from this section, expire on 7th May 1985; or
(b) who is elected to fill a vacancy occurring after that date, shall, unless he resigns his office or it otherwise becomes vacant, continue to hold office until 1st April 1986.
(2) In section 7(2) of the principal Act (elections of metropolitan district councillors) the reference to a year of election of county councillors shall be construed as a reference to a year of election of councillors for a non-metropolitan county.
(3) In sections 89(3) and 90 of the principal Act (filling of casual vacancies) as they apply to the Greater London Council and a metropolitan county council references to the date on which a councillor or person would regularly have retired shall be construed in accordance with subsection (1) above; and in the said section 89(3) the words after the semi-colon shall not apply in relation to those councils.
(4) Section 8(2)(a) of the principal Act and paragraph 6(2) of Schedule 2 to that Act are hereby repealed.

Mr. Patrick Jenkin: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Ernest Armstrong): With this it will be convenient to take the following Amendment (a) to the proposed Lords amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham), leave out clause 2.
Lords amendments Nos. 3 to 7 and 17 to 19.

Mr. Jenkin: Amendment No. 2 goes to the heart of the Bill. Before I make a case for accepting the amendment it might be convenient if I remind the House briefly of how matters stand in the light of the changes that have been made to the Bill in another place. I was told by Mr. Speaker that this would be an appropriate moment to do so and I am grateful to him.
There are a number of points which, in the light of some of the comments that followed the decision in another place, it is important to put on the record. First, the proposal to abolish the GLC and the six metropolitan county councils remains unchanged, as does our proposal for the date of that restructuring, 1 April 1986. That proposed date has not been altered by as much as a day. Of course, it is always subject to the will of Parliament and the passage of the main Bill in the next Session. That was always the case. Nothing that has happened recently in another place on the Bill has caused us to depart in any way from our commitment to abolish those unnecessary upper-tier councils by 1 April 1986.
Secondly, it is important to make the point—no doubt much will be made of this by the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham)—that the proposal which we put before the House and which was accepted to cancel the 1985 elections to the upper tier councils still stands and is embodied in the Bill as it comes back to us. There is no precedent for holding elections to authorities with only 11 months to run. That view was accepted by another place and, let me remind the House, by the substantial majority of 93. There was an amendment by the Official Opposition

in another place to enable the elections to go ahead, but that was defeated. Instead, the Government's amendment, providing that the existing councillors should continue in office until the councils disappear, was preferred. That is the substance of Lords amendment No. 2 and of the consequential amendments.
No doubt that defeat on the elections issue explains why the Labour party's enthusiasm for another place seems to have evaporated almost as quickly as it appeared. I am glad that it has, because the House has rarely seen such hypocrisy as we have seen from the Labour party over the House of Lords. Labour Members applaud the use of its powers when it suits them, yet we are told that a future Labour Government will destroy the other place. Every Labour Member fought the election on the clear manifesto commitment
to abolish the undemocratic House of Lords as quickly as possible and, as an interim measure, introduce a Bill in the first session of Parliament to remove its legislative powers".

Mr. Tony Banks: rose—

Mr. Jenkin: I have only just begun and I want to make my point.
I want to draw the attention of the House to what was said in the leader column of The Times on Saturday 30 June about the Labour party's view of the House of Lords. It said:
On this occasion, it will suit the Labour Party to hail the Lords' action as a blow for constitutional propriety. At other times it suits them to present any action by the upper house which impedes their own plans as the work of a chamber of crusty backwoodsmen.
It went on to say:
Worse, it is simply and solely the Labour Party's hostility to a bicameral parliament (such as virtually every democracy has) which has kept the upper house unreformed in face of Conservative attempts to reform it by agreement."—
[Interruption.] I quite understand that Labour Members want of change the subject. The Lords amendments have come back to the House and Labour Members, pledged to abolish the Lords, have cheered their heads off.
The Times went on:
A second chamber whose good works can be discredited by its composition is the Labour preference, if there must be a second chamber at all. That is a deeply dishonest position and the depths of the dishonesty have been exposed this week.
The Times articulated the view which a great many people had when they read the Labour party's response to the amendments passed in another place.

Mr. Tony Banks: The Secretary of State is trying to divert the attention of the House from the substance of the debate. If the right hon. Gentleman became involved in a fight down at his local pub, which he probably does from time to time, would he ask the person who came to his aid how he or she voted or whether he or she was a hereditary peer?

Mr. Jenkin: I am at a loss to know how to reply to that. I shall return to it in a moment.
It was the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen) who put his finger on the key issue when he attacked the Leader of the Labour party for endorsing class politics and extra-parliamentary action at the miners' gala.
The Conservative party believes firmly in two Chamber Government. We believe in the revising powers of another place. That is why the Government accepted the


existing councillors for another year. That in turn raises the spectre of deliberate obstruction by the abolition councils. We shall listen with interest to discover the line taken by the Opposition spokesman on the recent activities of some of the abolition councils which seem to be so ready to flout the ordinary decencies of public life.

Mr. Alfred Morris: The central issue in the debate is the right hon. Gentleman's lack of enthusiasm for elections. He will have heard over the weekend of the intention to have elections in the spring of next year in the metropolitan councils. How does he react to that? Will he be helpful or obstructive?

Mr. Jenkin: That is a matter not for me but for those who decide whether they wish to fight elections which many would regard as nothing more than political stunts. That is not a sensible use of election procedures.

Mr. Beith: The right hon. Gentleman's commendation of the work of another place on the Bill reads rather differently from some of his earlier comments. Sharing as I do with him the view that we should retain bicameral government, does he not recognise, as some of his hon. Friends have, that his readiness to abolish both authorities and elections so quickly under the Bill undermines the case that he is seeking to present for the maintenance of some essential features of our constitution?

Mr. Jenkin: On the contrary, the proposals in the Bill are entirely appropriate, given the Government's intention to present the House with proposals to abolish the upper tier councils that have been shown to be unnecessary and an expensive burden on ratepayers. In no way does the Bill prejudge the main issue. Opposition Members will have an opportunity of full parliamentary debate on the main substance of the issue, as the matter will be debated in this House and in another place. The Labour party's hypocrisy on this issue—wanting to abolish the other place while applauding its decisions when they happen to suit the Labour party—sticks in the gullet.
5 pm
I was about to deal with the threat of obstruction which prolonging the lives of existing councils presents. During their extended term of office they will have more time to carry out what have clearly been threats of obstruction and non-compliance. In those circumstances, the Government have no option but to take preventive action. That action has taken three forms. First, there is a new clause, which we shall discuss later, which requires the abolition authorities to obtain my consent before making payments under section 137 as from 1 April 1985. That requirement applies from next year because we understand that most authorities have committed their funds for this year.
Secondly, the Government introduced new clauses in another place which require the GLC and the metropolitan county counils to obtain my consent before disposing of any interest in land and before entering any contract above a certain value. Those controls will take effect as soon as the Bill is enacted.
The third action was raised by the hon. Member for Copeland in his point of order at the beginning of our proceedings. On 24 July I announced that the main abolition Bill will contain a clause which requires the GLC and the metropolitan councils to obtain my consent before providing assistance to another local authority and before financing activities which are undertaken by other local

authorities under agency agreements. That control will be subject entirely to Parliament. If Parliament agrees, it will apply to all such transactions and arrangements that are entered into from 24 July 1984. When consent is not obtained, the main Bill will provide that I shall have the power to require the repayment of the moneys concerned, with interest, by the recipient authorities.

Mr. Straw: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Jenkin: I shall develop my argument a little further and then give way.
The hon. Member for Copeland raised several points in a rather excited way at the beginning of the debate, which suggested that he might have read more into the written answer that I gave my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Shersby) than was either in the answer or intended. It is a matter of regret to the Government that we have to take these unpalatable steps. I have been staggered by the depths of irresponsibility to which some councils now appear to have become prone.

Mr. Roland Boyes: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Jenkin: No. In the past few months some people have urged on me the need for stringent counter-obstruction measures. I was reluctant to accept that such measures were necessary because, perhaps in my innocence, I believed that councillors who were faced with the realities would behave responsibly and with propriety. However, when evidence of such irresponsibility arises, the Government have no option but to say that they will take whatever steps are necessary to protect the interests of the successor authorities arid ratepayers in the effected areas.

Mr. Tony Banks: rose—

Mr. Jenkin: It became apparent only a few days ago that the GLC planned to transfer large sums of money—some reports quoted £50 million. The Observer ran a headline,
GLC to give out £100 million.
The first paragraph of the article said:
The Greater London Council plans to transfer £100 million to Labour controlled councils despite the Government's attempt to curb its spending powers.
Other reports have said that the money is to be distributed on a party political basis to selected London boroughs. I cannot rule out the possibility of metropolitan counties being tempted to follow suit in regard to certain of their district councils.

Mr. Boyes: rose—

Mr. Jenkin: I and the Government regard it as imperative that, pending the decision of Parliament on the continued existence of the councils, nothing—

Mr. Boyes: rose—

Mr. Jenkin: —should be done to prejudice the interests of all of the appropriate successor authorities and their ratepayers. Our intentions are to protect the successor authorities and their ratepayers.

Mr. Boyes: rose—

Mr. Jenkin: Therefore, I announced in reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge on 24 July that I would seek powers with retrospective effect—

Dr. Cunningham: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Jenkin: Perhaps I might describe our proposals, as it is clear from what the hon. Gentleman said at the beginning of the debate that he has misunderstood them. Very well, I give way to the hon. Gentleman.

Dr. Cunningham: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way. I understand his desire to outline his proposals. I welcome that. Apart from the flummery that we have just heard, what is, and where, is the evidence from the GLC or the metropolitan councils to substantiate the action that he has taken? He has not produced one scintilla or one iota of evidence to support what he is doing.

Mr. Jenkin: If indeed there is no such proposal, the authorities have nothing whatever to fear from my legislation.

Dr. Cunningham: rose——

Mr. Jenkin: The hon. Gentleman should listen to what I am proposing, as, no doubt completely inadvertently, he misled the House earlier. I propose that, in the main abolition Bill, I should have the power to require my consent for any financial assistance by the outgoing authorities to any other authority. My consent will also be required for the financing of another authority's activities under any agency arrangement. If any such authority receives assistance without my consent, it may be required to repay that money by 1 April 1986.

Mr. Boyes: rose—

Mr. Jenkin: The hon. Member for Copeland raised the spectre of retrospective consents and retrospective disqualification and surcharge. I should like to make it abundantly clear that that is not the Government's intention. The only provision that we intend to include in the Bill in the next Session is the power to require the repayment of money that has been paid without my consent.
If it would alleviate the hon. Gentleman's anxiety—I must speak in general terms because these are important matters of drafting—I should be prepared to include in a suitable form in that legislation a legislative expression that it is not our intention that this should have anything to do with disqualification penalties or surcharges. We envisage a sanction only if a payment is made by the GLC or a metropolitan county council to another authority without my consent. The Bill when it becomes law will make provision for the repayment of that amount, with interest, to the paying authority. Our sole purpose is to protect the interests of successor authorities and ratepayers in the GLC and metropolitan county areas.

Dr. Cunningham: The Secretary of State's comments show how ill-thought out the proposals are. The very fact that he must give such an assurance from the Dispatch Box shows that.

Mr. Peter Lilley: It is a generous offer.

Dr. Cunningham: The hon. Gentleman says that it is a generous offer. The assumption of powers and the use of Executive action based on powers which Parliament has not granted and which do not exist is an abuse of power. Therefore, although the right hon. Gentleman suggests that he is making a concession, he is fundamentally wrong in requiring authorities to seek his permission under powers which he does not have.

Mr. Jenkin: I shall come to the question of precedent. The hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) suggested from a sedentary position that the only precedents for such retrospective legislation were fiscal. There are ample fiscal precedents. Again and again Chancellors of the Exchequer make announcements as early as the autumn that a particular form of tax transaction or avoidance will be dealt with in the next Finance Bill and tax charged in a particular way, and that it will apply to any transaction made after the date of the announcement. The hon. Gentleman would not quarrel with that.
I can cite two recent examples from the Finance Act 1984. The Act received Royal Assent on 26 July and contained two examples of retrospective provision. Section 74 relates to avoidance devices involving capital and income bonds and closes a loophole arising within the provisions of section 30 of the Finance Act 1980. The intention to legislate for that was announced on 22 August 1983 and the Finance Act backdated the provision to that date.
Similarly, in section 76 and schedule 15, it was necessary to close a loophole in the qualifying conditions for life assurance policies. The intention to legislate was announced on 17 November 1983 and the provision was backdated to that date. One could go back over the years and find many such provisions.
I accept that that has now become common practice and is necessary to protect the interests of taxpayers generally, but what was the Opposition's attitude when they introduced the Control of Office and Industrial Development Act 1965? The Labour Government announced on 5 November 1964 that office development from that date would require permits. The necessary legislation did not have a Second Reading until February 1965 and Royal Assent was not received until 5 July 1965. That is a perfect precedent for stopping some action straight away if it is necessary. One may or may not have agreed with the need for office development permits, but it cannot be denied that the Labour Government and Lord Wilson of Rievaulx, as he now is, thought it right to ensure that that Act dated back to the announcement of the original provision.
Similarly, the Town and Country Planning Act 1963, the main provisions of which sought to close a loophole in planning controls, was deemed to operate from the date of the Bill's introduction, although Royal Assent came many months later.
I could cite many other examples. Today we are dealing with a threat—the hon. Member for Copeland may be right in saying that it is only a threat and that the reports of the many newspapers are groundless—which involves tens of millions of pounds, perhaps even £100 million, being salted away in a preferential way for particular authorities, to the detriment of ratepayers generally.
The Government would have been grossly irresponsible if they had not acted in a way which precluded such transactions from the date of the announcement. Obviously, that must be validated by the passage of the subsequent legislation. I contend that we are entirely right in principle, that we can cite perfectly good precedents and that on the merits of the issue we are absolutely right to proceed as we have done.

Dr. Keith Hampson: The matter certainly needs to be dealt with urgently, considering the


fact that at one meeting the Greater Manchester council rushed through more than 300 items. The GLC got rid of property in Coin street which cost it well over £2·5 million for £750,000. If ratepayers can challenge the district auditors and prove that the GLC has obtained artificially low prices when getting rid of its assets to boroughs, co operatives or whoever, will surcharges and disqualification penalties he possible?

Mr. Jenkin: These matters may become the subject of legislation, and therefore I must be cautious in my remarks. If a local authority wishes to dispose of property below its market value, it will normally require my consent. However, I assure my hon. Friend that my consent was not sought for that particular transaction. All the remedies of ratepayers and councillors involving the intervention of the district auditors will remain. It may be that many of the transactions which were rushed through recently will become the subject of such proceedings. We do not intend to prevent that.

Mr. Tony Banks: I wish to assist the Secretary of State. Clearly, he is suffering from a bad information service if he must rely on newspapers to tell him what is happening at the GLC. Will he tell the House what the position is now of those boroughs—they are part of the stress areas scheme which the GLC operates—which accepted a promise of about £14 million at the beginning of the 1984–85 financial year and who set their rates accordingly? Not all that money has been paid over to them, but it was part of the GLC's consultative process when it drew up its budget.
What happens if the GLC pays over that money, which was legally promised and accepted, and the Secretary of State decides that the GLC is acting improperly, as he interprets it? What will happen to those boroughs which struck the rate for this year on the basis of a legal promise that the GLC would give them about £14 millions?
Finally—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member's intervention has been long enough.

Mr. Jenkin: The hon. Gentleman's question is perfectly fair. If the transaction falls within the description of the transactions set out in my written answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge, the local authority will have to seek my consent. Clearly, the circumstances to which the hon. Gentleman drew my attention would have to be taken fully into account before a decision was made. It would be wrong for me now to attempt to give a blanket answer to several transactions which may have happened at different dates, be at different stages and have arisen in entirely different circumstances.

Mr. John Heddle (Mid-Staffordshire): Does my right hon. Friend agree that if the newspaper reports are entirely unfounded Opposition members have nothing to fear? However, to pursue the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-West (Dr. Hampson), will my right hon. Friend confirm that in the event of the GLC or the Greater London Enterprise Board being persuaded to transfer some of its property assets to some friendly boroughs, bearing in mind that 10 of the 18 rate-capped boroughs in the GLC are Labour-controlled, and that no money changed hands but the vendor authority granted a 100 per cent. mortgage to the acquiring authority, he would still have the power to protect ratepayers?

Mr. Jenkin: The transfer of an interest in land will be covered by a clause which we shall discuss later during our debate on Lords amendment No. 10. As to the transfer of resources from one authority to another, the only provision is that which I demonstrated in my written answer o f 24 July: if it falls within the provision of that answer and has been made without consent, the main Bill will include a power to require the receiving authority to repay it. All ratepayers should be protected from the sort of financial dealings that we have seen during the past few days, notably in the GLC.

Mr. Boyes: rose—

Mr. Jenkin: I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman, who has been very persistent.

Mr. Boyes: I have been very patient. Will the Secretary of State answer the question of my hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) about the evidence for introducing this legislation? As a representative of the Tyne and Wear area, it seems that councillors from that area are being judged on the basis of a newspaper article. Will the Secretary of State make it clear that there is a distinction between retrospective fiscal regulations, which protect people against speculators who might make private gains, and councillors who are simply transferring an asset from one public sector body to another, with no gain to the councillors and with the asset remaining in the public sector?

Mr. Jenkin: There is no difference at all. We are discussing the proper handling of ratepayers' money which has no doubt been raised properly through the rating system and is in the authority's coffers. If that is used in advance of abolition, and apparently with the intention of rushing through the transaction to escape the provisions of the Bill, which will take effect only after Royal Assent, we must protect the ratepayers.

Mr. Simon Hughes: Why have such proposals been introduced only now, when the Conservative party introduced legislation in relation to all the councils about which we are talking and his predecessor Administration asked the Audit Commission as well as district auditors to carry out exactly the job for which he is now seeking additional powers? Why now and why so late?

Mr. Jenkin: I have already explained that I was reluctant to accept that such legislation would be necessary. We needed some evidence that it would be necessary before we introduced such proposals to the House. The changes that were made to the Bill in another place offer much greater scope to outgoing councils to salt away assets to the detriment of ratepayers in the area; and that, too, justifies the legislation that we have introduced.
In past reorganisations Governments have not had to deal with local authorities that are dominated by Left-wing extremists — [Interruption.] Opposition Members may jeer, but some Opposition Front-Bench spokesmen have already been frightened by such councils.
My hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-West (Dr. Hampson) mentioned what has happened. Some councillors on the GLC have made it clear, not least to the leaders of borough councils, that if possible they will pursue a scorched-earth policy. Some of their proposals have stuck in the throats of even some Labour councillors—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Blackburn may think this funny, but it is not. On Friday 20 July and


Monday 23 July the GLC dealt with many separate reports — not just 50, 100 or even 200, but 430 reports involving major decisions and large sums of money. That is not local government in its ordinary manifestation; it is a travesty of local government and the prostitution of local government powers.
Last Monday, which has been nicknamed "mad Monday" in county hall, even distinguished Labour councillors such as Sir Ashley Bramall and Mr. Brannigan complained about the late arrival of papers. At one meeting several members had no papers at all, and it is no wonder that the majority party orders the public galleries to be cleared. It did not want the public to see what was going on. We have this on the authority of Mr. Jim Daly's letter to The Guardian, which states:
One clue was given by Mr. Banks"—
that is the hon. Member for Newham, North-West—
when he offered me an explanation outside the chamber. 'I don't need to read the papers or discuss the issue. I know what to do about Coin Street.' We had an interesting chat and I told him that the world ought to know his views. He said he didn't care about that, but I thought your readers might.
That is the sort of thing that has been happening.

Mr. Ron Leighton: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Jenkin: No, I shall not give way.
One proposal on Friday was to commit £400,000 of ratepayers' money to something called the Greater London area war risk study, which is part of the initiative of being a nuclear-free zone. The GLC has asked the Polytechnic of the South Bank to undertake that study. Another rushed proposal was to spend £40,000 on the Sizewell B public inquiry; some may wonder what that has to do with the GLC. A week earlier the GLC set aside £500,000 for International Women's Week. I have nothing whatever against international women, but one wonders how much of that extra money will be spent on trips to the seaside by the women's committee.

Mr. Leighton: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The Secretary of State has already been speaking for 40 minutes. There have been a great number of interruptions and interventions. When the right hon. Gentleman is obviously not giving way, it is merely delaying matters for hon. Members to seek to intervene.

Mr. Jenkin: I want to get to the amendment. I have merely been showing why, in response to the main decision taken in another place, it has been necessary for the Government to ask Parliament to accept some provisions for preventing obstruction and for safeguarding the resources and assets of the upper tier authorities.
The Bill comes back to us from another place with important changes, but they do not undermine the main purpose of the Government's proposals, they do not affect the timing of the proposals, and they do not affect their substance.
Lords amendment No. 2 contains one of the main changes to the Bill since it left here for another place. It replaces the provisions which required the constituent councils to appoint members to the transitional GLC and MCCs for the last 11 months of those authorities' existence. Instead of that, it now provides for the

continuation in office until 1 April 1986 of the present members of the GLC and the MCCs. As before, and for the same reasons as the Government have always given, the May 1985 elections will be suspended. As before, that will be effected by a commencement order, which I shall not make until this House has given the main abolition Bill a Second Reading, and we have just decided that that commencement order is subject to an affirmative resolution.
Therefore, Lords amendment No. 2 forms—

Mr. Leighton: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The Secretary of State is obviously not giving way.

Mr. Jenkin: It provides for the cancellation of the elections and for the extended term of office to cover the period up to abolition.
Lords amendments Nos. 3, 4, 5 and 7, and 17 to 19, all remove the provisions in the Bill which relate to transitional councils, and which are therefore now irrelevant. Lords amendment No. 6 is simply a necessary consequential modification of the provision relating to the quorum of the extended councils.
We recognised the arguments in another place and we recognised the argument against the consequences of the original proposal for transitional arrangements. Of course, the new arrangement is not perfect, but the basic arguments remain the same. It would be absurd and unprecedented to hold the May 1985 elections, and it is therefore necessary to make some arrangement for the interim period.
The amendment to leave out Lords amendment No. 2 would, if carried, return us to the original proposal which caused so much concern in another place.
Lords amendment No. 2 and its consequential amendments—in which I include Lords amendment No. 6—provide a solution which is workable and, with the aid of the controls which we shall be discussing in detail later, the Government believe that the new arrangements are acceptable.

Dr. Cunningham: The intention of amendment (a) is not, as the Secretary of State said, to remove Lords amendment No. 2 but to remove clause 2 and to replace it with other provisions.
We have just heard an extraordinary speech from the Secretary of State. He referred to new proposals following amendments to the Bill, and to proposals which have been announced but which are not incorporated in the legislation. In keeping with the Bill itself and the provisions contained in it, for which there is no evidence of need, and in regard to which there has been no inquiry, financial or otherwise, the proposals that the Secretary of State has just announced are themselves not supported by any evidence of any substance.
The original provisions in the Bill for the cancellation of elections and the creation in their place of nominated councils, were defeated in the House of Lords, as the right hon. Gentleman said, but that decision has now been overtaken by events there. At the instigation of the Government, amendments have been moved to extend the terms of office of existing councillors, and the elections that were planned to take place next year will now be cancelled. The extended terms of office are to run till 1 April 1986. No provision has been made in the Bill, in the


amendments or in any other way, for control of the GLC and the MCCs after that date. So the right hon. Gentleman is assuming that everything will be fine, that everything he plans will take place on time, and that no such control will be necessary.
Our amendment would delete the provisions of clause 2, which cancel the elections and extend the terms, and in substitution the Secretary of State would be given the reserve power, after enactment of the main Bill, to limit the terms of office of the new, elected councillors from any date after 1 April 1986. In the meantime, as most people in the metropolitan areas and the GLC would wish, the elections would proceed on 2 May 1985 as planned.
There has never previously been an interim provisions Bill of this nature in any local government reorganisation, or a paving Bill, as it has come to be known. The intention of the Secretary of State and the Government in introducing such a Bill was wrong in the first place. The Opposition believe that the Bill was badly flawed when drafted, and the House of Lords agreed with us on some fundamental issues.
Whatever the right hon. Gentleman thinks about the amendments that have now been carried in the House of Lords, our view remains the same. The Bill is wrong. Any decision to cancel elections before the main issue has been decided is also wrong. The House of Lords was being bypassed as the Bill stood and, in spite of the amendments, it will be bypassed again. The cancellation of the elections, in spite of th right hon. Gentleman's protestations, reates a dangerous constitutional precedent. The appointment of nominated councils, which would have produced a gerymander, has now been set aside, but the House of Lords, as the right hon. Gentleman must know, has agreed to his amendments with considerable unease and misgivings.

Mr. Jenkin: With a majority of 93.

Dr. Cunningham: The right hon. Gentleman says that there was a majority of 93. He must know, from the views expressed in this Chamber, that the majority given to the Bill in this House on Second Reading was a false majority, in the sense that many of his hon. Friends voted for the measure with considerable reluctance, as they said when he made his statement following the original decision of the House of Lords on these matters.

Mr. Jenkin: I think it is right to point out in this context—I am speaking from memory but I believe it to be true — that a majority of the Cross Bench peers supported the provisions now before us and were part of that majority of 93 in the Upper House.

Dr. Cunningham: I do not dissent from that. I am saying that, notwithstanding that decision, and the decision on Second Reading, the right hon. Gentleman must know, if he is honest with himself, that there is still deep unease on his own Benches about the methods being used to force this legislation through the House. In spite of the right hon. Gentleman's protestations there is no precedent for extending terms of office before main abolition issues have been decided.
The Government have consistently said that no elections are necessary next year, since the boroughs and districts are successor authorities. Under the Government's current abolition plans, at most slightly more than 40 per cent. of GLC spending, and only about

30 per cent. of metropolitan county council spending, will go directly to the boroughs and districts. The remainder will go to unelected joint boards and quangos. We regret that the right hon. Gentleman has ducked that issue by letting it be known that he will announce his decision about those bodies tomorrow, the day after the House of Commons is asked to decide upon the issue.
What has got into the right hon. Gentleman? Does he no longer have the courage of his convictions? Why could he not come to the House and make his announcement before we debated the issues? That would be the normal way to proceed. That is the way that any Minister confident of his proposals and confident about his position would proceed. Why did not the right hon. Gentleman make his announcement before we were asked to make our decision?

Mr. Jenkin: When the document is published the hon. Gentleman will find that it contains few surprises. As I said at Question Time, the purpose of the document is to bring together a number of decisions which have been announced in recent months in written answers, in debates and in statements, so that the House, the councils and the public can see under one cover the proposals which will form the basis of the legislation. The document will, of course, contain a few details which have not been the subject of public announcement, but the mass of decisions, including those concerning the joint boards, are already public knowledge.

Dr. Cunningham: It is clear from that that the document is available now. If it contains few surprises and, by implication, no major points of issue, why has the right hon. Gentleman not provided it for us to see and discuss today? What does the right hon. Gentleman lack? Does he lack political nerve? Why should these matters be kept from the House of Commons—from his own right hon. and hon. Friends as well as from the Opposition? The right hon. Gentleman has made unsubstantiated criticisms of local government. The right hon. Gentleman today is acting in the way that he accuses elected councillors of acting. He is denying information to the House of Commons.
The date of 1 April 1986 is unrealistic as a final date for the abolition of the GLC and the metropolitan counties. No provision is made for after that date. That may cause the Government problems. It certainly caused Lord Bellwin problems when he spoke in another place. When he replied to an amendment similar to that which we are discussing he said:
The date is 1st April 1986 and, subject to the confirmation of Parliament in due course, that is the date which will be met." —[Official Report, House of Lords, 3 July 1984; Vol. 454, c. 148.]
Within hours Lord Bellwin was saying something different. He said:
To put a specific deadline in this Bill is not only unnecessary, but it prejudices Parliament's timetable for considering the main Bill and prejudices Parliament's consideration of that Bill since it is that Bill which will specify abolition dates."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 3 July 1984; Vol. 454, c. 180.]
Two days later the Secretary of State announced that the nominated councils would be dropped and that there would be an extension of terms into 1986. He said that the timetable will mean that a further extension of terms "into 1986", or some other provision, would almost certainly be necessary. The irony for the right hon. Gentleman and his


colleagues in the Government is that throughout the long discussion, public and parliamentary, about these issues public opinion in those areas of the country affected has steadily hardened against the Government's policies and against the Government's proposals.
There has been no attempt, either through an inquiry — independent or otherwise — to substantiate the Government's case for the abolition of the GLC and the metropolitan counties. No response has been given to the Coopers Lybrand report—the only report of substance into the financial consequences of what is proposed. Even the National Ratepayers Association has been moved to pass a motion saying that the onus should be on the Government that savings will be made and that the consequences will not make matters worse for ratepayers. At least 90 per cent. of submissions to the Secretary of State are against his proposal. The weight of evidence against the proposal is overwhelming in its condemnation, yet, still the right hon. Gentleman intends to proceed.
5.45 pm
This afternoon the Secretary of State used an expression which will cause deep offence in town halls, city halls and county halls throughout the country. In a general condemnation of elected Labour councillors, the Secretary of State said that they were "flouting the decencies of public life." That is scandalous and the right hon. Gentleman knows it. He advanced no evidence to support that wide, general condemnation of the many decent councillors who have been elected again and again by the communities that they represent. It was an appalling statement for the Secretary of State to make, especially in view of his record in this and related matters.

Mr. Heddle: Mr. Livingstone is investing £10 million of hard-pressed, Greater London ratepayers' money in trying to persuade people that his council should remain. Does not that directly flout local government?

Dr. Cunningham: Absolutely not. The Secretary of State used the phrase "counter-obstruction"— strange words. The hon. Member for Mid-Staffordshire (Mr. Heddle) suggests that democratically elected councillors should have no opportunity to state their case to the people who elect them; that they should have no opportunity to argue against one of the most authoritarian and anti-democratic pieces of local government legislation the House has witnessed. The hon. Gentleman wants opposition to be silenced. He wants quiescence. Is it any more or less valid for the Government to set up their own information unit in the Ministry of Defence to counter arguments about cruise missiles and the Trident programme or to spend many millions of pounds of taxpayers' money in support of Conservative policies? What is the difference?

Mr. Heddle: The Hon. Gentleman will recall that that matter was put to the electorate at the last general election —[Interruption.]—just as the question of the abolition of the metropolitan county councils and the GLC was included in the Conservative manifesto and in the manifesto of the alliance parties. Is the hon. Gentleman aware that as recently as 1979, Mr. Livingstone said that the Marshall plan should have been implemented and that the GLC should at that time have been abolished?

Dr. Cunningham: I do not agree with that outburst, any more than I agreed with the hon. Gentleman's first intervention.

Mr. Heddle: I do not understand why the hon. Gentleman disagrees.

Dr. Cunningham: The hon. Gentleman saying he does not understand is like his right hon. Friend saying that we on these Benches are afraid of some Labour councillors. I am not frightened of any of the issues affecting local government or of any of the people behind them, from whatever political party they come.
The right hon. Gentleman said that elected councillors were flouting the decencies of public life. He is responsible for the most unprecedented authoritarian legislation that local government has seen. He has taken powers of a nature and scale hitherto unknown, first in the Rates Act and now in these proposals. He has announced his intention to introduce retrospective legislation on expenditure which it is within the compentence of authorities at present to incur and to introduce penal powers of disqualification.
Far from flouting the decencies of public life, the people to whom the right hon. Gentleman referred are defending long-held local democratic rights and freedoms in a plural society. That is the reality of the conflict between them and him. By his policies, including his financial policies, the right hon. Gentleman is undermining democratic local government, is abusing his office and is debasing the relationship between central and local government. It comes ill from him to make those sort of remarks about the friends and colleagues of myself and many Opposition Members, and I reject absolutely what he said.
The Secretary of State caused his office to write to me today about yet another matter associated with this legislation. The letter said that Ministers had been considering the way in which the requirements for consent to expenditure would operate, assuming that Parliament's consent to the Bill was finally obtained. That appeared on the Letter Board within minutes of this debate starting.
However, when one examines a letter, dated today, which has been sent by one of the right hon. Gentleman's officials, a Mr. Pickup, to the chief executives of London boroughs and metropolitan districts, one sees in the second paragraph a reference to seeking views on these issues. It says:
I have, however, been asked to point out that while comments will be welcome, they will not be allowed to impede progress towards implementing the new controls or framing proposals for abolition.
What is the purpose of this charade and of writing a letter which makes it clear that note will not be taken of our comments?

Mr. Patrick Jenkin: Really!

Dr. Cunningham: The right hon. Gentleman is wriggling again. That paragraph, taken with his decision not to allow Parliament to see the proposals that he will announce until tomorrow, says more about the right hon. Gentleman and the way in which he is approaching these matters, with an undemocratic flouting of parliamentary procedures, than anything that he might say about councillors in the metropolitan counties and the GLC.
The right hon. Gentleman said that the powers in the Bill were necessary because he had read an article in the


Daily Mail—[Interruption.]—and that was the sum total of the evidence that he adduced in support of his proposals. He did not advance a case of any significance or substance to substantiate what he is doing.
I remind Conservative Members of some of the decisions which have been taken by the GLC and which affect many of their constituencies. The GLC has been agreeing funding with inner and outer London boroughs. So far, £14 million has been committed in a budget agreed in February for 1984–85, and some of those decisions have not yet been implemented. That is what the right hon. Gentleman says he intends to cut across.
The boroughs being assisted this year are Brent, Ealing, Hammersmith and Fulham and Hillingdon — all Conservative controlled —Waltham Forest, where there is no overall control, and Camden, Greenwich, Hackney, Haringey, Hounslow, Islington, Lambeth, Lewisham, Newham, Southwark and Tower Hamlets, which are Labour-controlled. The total cost of a second packet— this is despite all the figures that the right hon. Gentleman bandied about—is, I am informed, £21 million, but that has not yet been fully committed.
Is it not a fact that that money has been properly committed, having been properly discussed and the expenditure lawfully decided upon? If so, should it be deemed, at the whim of the Secretary of State some months hence, to have been an unlawful decision? Is that what the right hon. Gentleman calls a reasonable way to proceed? We do not. We refute his argument, which is without substance,and we refute his proposals, which are unprecedented and dangerous, like much of the legislation and proposals for which he has been responsible.
The Secretary of State's statement today was vague and his assurance was not worth anything because, as he knows, if a council must pay back money with interest, the latter at least would be potentially surchargeable. It could be challenged by any ratepayer. If it were challenged, that could lead to the surcharging and disqualification of councillors. Therefore, the right hon. Gentleman must go much further than the assurance he gave today if he is to allay the fears and disquiet that are felt on these issues.
The right hon. Gentleman claimed that these powers were needed to stop asset-stripping. No one in the GLC or elsewhere has expressed any intention of unreasonably transferring funds or property to boroughs or of acting outside the usual scope of such transactions, which have occurred in the past under Conservative and Labour control of the GLC. That is the reality of what is happening now, and the council has a legitimate right to proceed in that way. It is lawful for them so to do and it is arrogance and abuse of power to require the GLC and the metropolitan counties to seek consent from a Minister who has no power to give that consent before such transactions take place.
6 pm
At each stage in our procedures the right hon. Gentleman takes a further step along the path of authoritarian central control of local government. Several more steps have been taken along that pathway with the Secretary of State's announcement of his intentions today, which are against all precedent. To require democratically elected authorities with powers to act in that way and to express an intention retrospectively is not to be compared with tax evasion and the like.
The right hon. Gentleman is seeking to make yet another change in the relationship between central Government and democratically elected local councils. We reject his proposals as we reject the intention lying behind the Bill. We shall be forcing these issues to a Division. Far from reassuring us in his speech, which was extraordinary — the longer it continued, the worse it became—the Secretary of State has contrived to make a very bad situation much worse.

Mr. Simon Hughes: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) referred properly to a document that emanated from the Secretary of State's office about an hour ago. It is clear that the letter is relevant to the debate as it relates to the powers and the enforcement of his prospective control. I ask you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to have inquiries made to ascertain whether other spokesmen in other parties and other Back Bench Members who wish to participate in the debate might also have sight of the document before the relevant part of the debate takes place.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The Secretary of State will have heard the hon. Gentleman's point of order. I understood the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) to refer to a letter. I have no doubt that the Secretary of State has taken on board the point that the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) has raised.

Mr. Cowans: The point of order raised by the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) highlights one of the main features of the Bill. There are letters, papers and books all over the place, and it seems that the one place where we should not look for the information that they contain is the Bill. That is one of the lessons that we learn in this place. We all learn that it is much more important to look in the small drawer at the back of the Minister's desk six months after a Bill has been introduced than to search through a Bill to find significant information.
The Secretary of State used the magical constitutional words,
I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment,
when he introduced the group of amendments that we are now discussing. If there was any enthusiasm in his voice when he uttered those words, it was lost to me. The right hon. Gentleman has been dragged screaming and kicking back to the Floor of the House to move the amendment It is clear that he doth not agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
The Secretary of State seemed to forget that Lords amendment No. 2 is directed towards elections. He spoke in detail about nearly everything but what the amendment is really about. That might be said to be the gift of a clever politician, but the right hon. Gentleman did not fool me. The right hon. Gentleman used the phrase "political stunts". That came from a Secretary of State who has been brought back to the House because of an accusation of political gerrymandering. His original proposals would have transferred the GLC to Tory control without the small benefit of elections. We were obviously listening to a master of "political stunts". The right hon. Gentleman was found out, and this afternoon he had to move
That the House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment,
when he for one doth not.
The Secretary of State talked about "Left-wing extremists". I shall not forget that. The only accurate part of that phrase in the context in which he used it is the word "extremists". The extremists are to be found on the Conservative Benches. The right hon. Gentleman should have his eyes examined. In the idiom of the part of the north which I represent, he needs to get his eyes chalked. He is definitely looking in the wrong direction.
The right hon. Gentleman told us on at least six occasions that there was a Division in another place which was won by 93 votes. I do not propose to tell him six times that there was another vote on 28 June which was won by 48 votes. It does not require a Bachelor of Science to work out that if the Division which was won by 48 votes had not taken place, there would have been no necessity for the Division which was won by 93 votes, and we would not be discussing the amendment.
It is clear that not all those in another place were jumping for joy at the introduction of the Bill in its original form. I have not heared the right hon. Gentleman say, "I am sorry. My intention was wrong." Of course it was wrong. He has not come close to explaining why democrats and non-extremists want to do away with elections. I thought that extremists and non-democrats wanted to do away with elections. I have now learnt that Left-wing extremists have elections and Right-wing democrats do away with them. That is the only conclusion that anyone in his right mind can arrive at after listening to the Secretary of State.
Prior to the Division in another place, which resulted in a majority of 93, Government Whips were searching throughout London for Government supporters with a view to securing a majority of about 49. They were successful to the extent that they subsequently produced a majority of 93, but on a previous occasion, having similarly scoured London for their supporters, they could not drum up a majority of 48. No doubt the Government Whips have been saying, "You do agree with something that the whole of your party has spent night and day trying to get through another place with a view to ensuring that it does not return to this place."
Their lordships were extremely concerned that the gerrymandering by the artist of the political stunt could overturn a democratically-elected council without the benefit of elections. That is why they threw out the Government's proposals. The democratic extremists come along and say, "We cannot have that. The people might vote. Whatever happens, we do not want that." The democratic extremists would not allow that, because the people might vote against the proposals. Therefore, they said, "We must see whether we can cobble up a compromise." They cobbled up a compromise by taking the unprecedented step— in accordance with the wish not of the electorate but of the democratic extremists— of extending the period in office of elected councillors. The democratic extremists took that step because people did not like the officials who were nominated. The Secretary of State has continually said that that measure was not a break with precedent. but in fact it was.
The Government were convinced that if they allowed the use of measures contained in the Lords amendment against the nominations, there would be no case for not allowing democratic elections. If there were democratic elections—this is the nub of the matter—the electorate

would have said, "Let us defeat the Government's measures," and the Government would have even less of a case than they have now. If any Conservative Member refutes my statement, let him stand up and say, "Let us have these elections," and there will be no argument. Either the hon. Gentleman or I will be right.
This great democratic body, which looks after the ratepayers and everyone else, is frightened to let the ratepayers have a say. How on earth have you the audacity to talk about the hard pressed ratepayers when you—

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Cowans: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker. You would be the last one I would attack, on the simple proposition that I should like to be called again.
Conservative Members have the audacity to talk about the hard-pressed ratepayers, but they do not let those people express an opinion. They say, "We shall look after you. You do not need the vote."
That brings me to those whom the Secretary of State lashes with his tongue as if it were tomorrow—the Left-wing extremists. The hard-pressed ratepayers are the people whom the Secretary of State calls, because they do not agree with him, Left-wing extremists. We are faced with a terrible position. There are the defenders of the hard-pressed ratepayers who elected the Left-wing extremists and who are not doing what the Government want. The Government, therefore, get rid of the Left-wing extremists by not allowing the hard-pressed ratepayers to vote. If an hon. Member follows that logic, he should be not in this place but in another place where he would get a little certificate proving beyond a shadow of doubt that he should not be in this place. I can think of a number of hon. Members who are well qualified to obtain that little certificate.
This measure is absolute nonsense. What I have said may have caused some laughter, but the substance of my remarks is concerned exactly with the Secretary of State's proposals. My speech has caused laughter because the meassue is barmy. The more we show up the Bill for what it really is, the better. That is, of course, the reason why the Government are frightened of the ballot box.
6.15 pm
In other debates—I shall not transgress or meander down any side lanes, Mr. Speaker—I have heard the words, "Let them ballot." How is it that on this occasion those who shout, "Let them ballot", are the one who now shout, "Do not let them ballot"? I could follow the ideas of someone who was logical and wanted everyone to ballot. I could agree or disagree with him. When however, Conservative Members want to ballot on some occasions, but on other occasions, when they have the power to allow a ballot, refuse to hold it, one must start asking questions. One does not need to be a Bachelor of Science to work out that the Conservatives want people to ballot only when they think that they can win. If Conservative Members think that they are going to lose, they say, "For goodness sake, do not bring in a ballot." Hon. Members may not agree with me, but that seems to be the logical conclusion. Perhaps the Secretay of State will rise and tell us whether that is the reason why he will not allow a ballot.

Mr. William Cash: The reason why it is important that we insist upon a ballot for the miners and


the reason why this case has occurred vis-a-vis the local authoritites is that the miners and the lcoal authorities have used their powers irresponsibly.

Mr. Cowans: Even if I had had a plant on the Conservative Benches, I could not have done better than that. The hon. Gentleman's remark sums up the position exactly. Our case has been substantiated, because the hon. Gentlemen appears to be one of the democratic extremists. The Government say, -Those people do not do what we want, so we shall not have a ballot. If we think that those people will do what we want we will have a ballot."
When I threw this little matter up for debate, I did not know that the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash) was going to make his point. I am grateful to him, because no hon. Member could have made my point better for me than he did. Therefore, there is not much for me to say, but I hope that many more hon. Members will speak like the hon. Gentleman.
It appeared passing strange that when the Secretary of State for the. Environment finished his speech, only Opposition Members rose to participate. I wonder whether there will be no opposition to those who take part in by-elections. Has the general word gone out from the Tory Central Office? Is it that we shall not hear anyone because of that, or is it that Conservative Members have nothing to say?
I believe that there is no precedent—I hope that the Secretary of State is listening carefully—for cancelling elections in peace time, unless the follow-up has already been agreed and decided. That is the bit that the Secretary of State missed out when he talked about "No precedent." In 1972 elections were allowed to go ahead while the Local Government Act set up the metropolitan county councils, which the right hon. Gentleman now wants to abolish. In 1963–64, elections were allowed to proceed until the GLC was set up. There is no precedent, even in war time, for such action as is proposed in this Bill. I understand that in war time some elections were allowed after a certain period. As far as I know, there is no war at the moment, so that cannot be the reason for cancelling the elections. The only logical reason for the Government's action is that they are frightened of the ballot box.
If we had been in Committee I could have spent quite a little time developing my argument, but I understand that many of my hon. Friends want to contribute to the debate, so I shall content myself with commenting briefly on the talk that we have heard about Left-wing extremists. I direct my remarks to Lords amendment No. 5, not because I think that it is any great shakes — for that matter, Lords amendment No. 6 does not do much for the Bill —but because of these constant references to Left-wing extremists.
I do not know any Opposition Member who knows anyone who is trying to restrict quorums. I know a great many Opposition Members who want a wider franchise and more people to have the ability to speak. But I do not know anyone who seeks for himself the power to reduce a quorum. Lords amendment No. 5 does nothing to restrict it. However, I quarrel with Lords amendment No. 6. It does not say that reducing the quorum is wrong, but it restricts the powers to do so to the metropolitan county councils and the GLC. In my book, giving any Secretary of State of whatever political colour the power to rig the quorum of a local authority is dictatorial and should be resisted by right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of

the House. Anyone who agrees with democracy cannot possibly allow a Secretary of State, at the drop of a hat, to interfere with anyone—never mind local authorities— by rigging a quorum.
Paragraph 6 of schedule 12 to the Local Government Act 1972—and I shall not repeat which Government passed that—provides:
no business shall be transacted at a meeting of a principal council unless at least one quarter of the whole number of members of the council are present.
I could argue with that, but one quarter does not seem to be unreasonable. However, it is unreasonable for the House knowingly to confer on the Secretary of State the power to lay down the quorum with no criterion.
The quorum could be two. It could even be one. In fact, the quorum is one. With this power, the Secretary of State takes upon himself the day-to-day running of local authorities — and he is one of those who have the audacity to talk about Left-wing extremists. No Labour Government in my memory ever gave a Secretary of State power over the day-to-day running of local government. That is exactly what this Secretary of State is doing.
This is not a political point. No democrat sitting in this Chamber would knowingly allow a Secretary of State to have this dictatorial power. Any hon. Member who votes for it can no longer call himself a democrat.

Mr. Kevin Barron: I enjoyed the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Tyne Bridge (Mr. Cowans). He was a lot more coherent in his description of what we are discussing than was the introduction of Lords amendment No. 2 by the Secretary of State. It is not unfair to say that the historical that bordered on the hysterical outline of the constitution of Parliament and the right hon. Gentleman's searching round in the bottom of the barrel to quote legislation which had been passed in the House in 1963 to justify the retrospective legislation that he proposes was quite beyond me.
I am in favour of amendment (a) tabled by five of my hon. Friends to Lords amendment No. 2. The House will no doubt recall that when the Bill went through the House our biggest argument about it was the constitutional one. The constitutional argument was put in two ways. It was argued that it was not possible to get rid of a democratically elected authority and replace it with one appointed by the Secretary of State and change its political nature, which unfortunately the House sought to do. The other argument was that it was quite wrong to abolish elections to those authorities before we had passed the legislation abolishing the councils involved. In terms of one of the three areas that we discussed that has been put right by another place, but we still have not resolved the position of the remaining councils which at present are properly constituted.
Amendment (a) seeks, first, to retain elections to those councils until Parliament has accepted the abolition Bill, which is to be produced at some time in the future. It also allows Parliament to have the final decision on whether the abolition Bill should proceed.
Many of the comments by Opposition Members today about the act of cowardice of the Secretary of State in seeking to abolish elections are right and should be made again and again. The Secretary of State has tried to justify the abolition of South Yorkshire county council and another six local authorities with one cutting from the Daily Mail. He has tried to justify their abolition and


therefore the Bill by saying that he believes it to be in the interests of ratepayers that the Bill goes through unamended. It is my strong belief that that again is an act of cowardice.
If it is true that South Yorkshire county council and the others are proposing rates which are unpopular with their ratepayers and providing services costing a great deal of money which are unpopular with ratepayers, the best people to tell those councils and the House are the ratepayers involved. In the 1979 and 1983 general elections the Government talked about rolling back the power of the state. It is quite wrong for such a Government to attempt to put forward this measure prior to the abolition Bill itself going through Parliament. It is totally wrong and it flies in the face of any semblance of democratic procedures. [Interruption.] If the hon. Member for St. Albans (Mr. Lilley) wishes to intervene, I shall give way to him. He sits behind the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, presumably having been tipped for the A-team. I hope that he will stand on his own two feet to justify himself occasionally instead of making comments from a sedentary position.
I am a representative who stands before his electors in South Yorkshire, and there are many others who do the same. At present, we are quite prepared to justify to our electors our assertion that South Yorkshire county council is levying the proper rates and providing the proper services in that area.
My hon. Friend the Member for Tyne Bridge explained what a democrat seemed to be in Britain in 1984. If there is any democrat present in the Chamber he will support amendment (a) and next May, in the seven areas where it is proposed that local government should be abolished, we shall see elections and we shall let the ratepayers decide whether they are quite as hard pressed as the Secretary of State suggests and whether they believe that their county councils or the GLC should be abolished.

Mr. John Cartwright: I join the hon. Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron) in congratulating the hon. Member for Tyne Bridge (Mr. Cowans) on a characteristic contribution to our debate. My only disappointment is that the speech was one of the hon. Gentleman's briefer efforts — not one of the major contributions that enlivened the longer watches when the Rates Bill was in Committee. Who knows, the night is young and there may be plenty of opportunities for him to go into more detail on the issues before us.
The main aim of Lords amendment No. 2 in the package before us is, as we all know, to extend the period of office of the GLC and metropolitan county councillors until 1 April 1986. My first query is whether the target date for the abolition of the GLC and the metropolitan counties will be achieved. I share much of the scepticism already voiced in the debate about the Government's ability to achieve that target. If one examines the Government's record so far with impartiality, one sees that it hardly has the smack of firm government or that sureness of touch which would guarantee their achieving the target of abolition by April 1986.
The GLC area is the one that I know best. There are considerable grounds for saying that the Government have underestimated the task of scrapping the council and not

putting a major body in its place. After the original proposals were published, a veritable snowstorm of hastily duplicated consultation documents was issued from Marsham street. Clearly, civil servants discovered further problems which they had not thought of in relation to the GLC's abolition.
I shall quote just two examples from my constituency. First, I shall deal with the future of Thamesmead new town, which was started in 1967. It is to be a major housing development in the Greater London area, divided between two London boroughs. The Government have still not told us who will carry forward the development of Thamesmead if the GLC, its developing authority, is removed.
My second example is perhaps more practical. Many in my part of London depend heavily on the Woolwich ferry. It is run by the GLC, and was run by the LCC before the GLC was ever thought of. It has been a free ferry for a very long time. Along came the Government, saying that they were to scrap the GLC, but put nothing in its place. What will happen to the Woolwich ferry? The Minister of State, Department of Transport has sent letters to a variety of people, and even hon. Members have been asked to make suggestions as to who might run the Woolwich ferry when the GLC has been scrapped.
What is certain is that neither of the two London boroughs on each side of the river can run the ferry. I am sure that the borough of Newham is not interested in doing so, and the borough of Greenwich has been rate-capped and is quite unable to take on that sort of responsibility. I have quoted those two examples to underline my contention that there is a grave risk that the GLC will not be ended by 1 April 1986.
In common with other hon. Members, I have talked to the GLC Staff Association, which brings a degree of professional expertise to bear on these matters. In its judgment, it will be impossible to wind down down the GLC's activities by 1 April 1986. No doubt one of the problems that will arise will be the difficulty of requiring tha staff of the GLC to co-operate in the abolition of their employer, and of their jobs. One of the least attractive parts of this very unattractive Bill is that it gives the Secretary of State the power to compel GLC employees to co-operate in winding down their council. What happens if the staff refuse so to do has not been made clear. There must be a strong possibility that the staff will not cooperate.
The Secretary of State, in his contribution to today's debate, had to rely on somewhat dubious press comment on what is happening at county hall. Perhaps that means that staff are already declining to co-operate with the Department of the Environment and the Secretary of State. That underlines the possibility that by 2 April 1986 we may find that the GLC, or the rump of it, is still in existence.
What will happen then? Under the terms of the Lords amendments there is no possibility of extending further the life of the GLC, even if some of us wanted that. I must say that many of us do not want that to happen. What will be done about the administration that will be left at county hall, without visible means of supervision? Will a new Bill be introduced? Will direct control or rule be undertaken in theory as well as in fact by the Seretary of State for what is left of the administration at county hall and, I suspect in county halls in other parts of the country?
A detailed problem that arises from the scrapping of elections, the answer to which the Secretary of State has not made clear, is what will happen about by-elections. We know what happened in the previous legislation. When the main abolition Bill received Royal Assent, no by-election vacancies were filled. We do not yet know what will happen when by-elections are called in the GLC or the other six metropolitan county councils. I mean by by-elections the results of genuine vacancies that airse when people decide that they have had enough and give up, or when they pass on to the great council chamber on the sky. I differentiate those genuine by-election vacancies from those to be contested on 20 September.
It is more than just an abstract issue, because we know that some Conservative members of the GLC have said that they were elected for four years and that after that time they will give up their seats. It will be interesting if there are several by-elections to replace retiring Conservative GLC members in May 1985. Will that be allowed under the Bill as well as under the main legislation that will follow it?
The Secretary of State has suggested today, and on earlier occasions, that there are clear precedents for abolishing elections. I cannot speak about the position in the metropolitan counties, but I can speak about Greater London, as I was involved in local government there from 1963 to 1965. I remember what happened. At that time, Parliament had made clear what would follow the abolition of the LCC and the old metropolitan boroughs. There was no question of abolishing elections until the issue of what would follow had been settled.
I recall that there were two separate elections in 1964, for the GLC and for the new London boroughs. Those bodies worked in tandem for the best part of the year with the LCC and the old metropolitan London boroughs. An extremely smooth handover resulted from the old and new councils working side by side in that arrangement.
On the basis of what the Secretary of State has suggested and what the Lords amendments put forward, such a smooth handover will not be possible in 1986. In fact, we still do not know for certain to what bodies the GLC and the metropolitan counties will hand over. We have clear suspicions of what will happen, on the basis of the White Paper. The Secretary of State has told us that there will be no surprises in his proposals. Why, then, does he make us wait until tomorrow, and not illuminate today's debate? It is clear that there will be a handover from elected authorities to a collection of unelected joint hoards. That cannot be based on the precedent of what took place in 1964.
The Secretary of State has made it clear that he is passionately opposed to letting the elections due in 1985 go forward. On Second Reading on 11 April he made it clear why he was so anxious not to have elections in May 1985. He said:
There are those who would have wished to turn the elections into a referendum on the Bill.
He asked rhetorically:
Would that be a proper purpose of local elections?
He came to the conclusion that it was not. I question that. We have had referendums about the constitutional arrangements for Scotland and Wales. I see nothing wrong in giving the people of Greater London and the other metropolitan counties the opportunity, through the ballot box, to express a view on whether they want their existing

councils to go forward or whether they are enamoured of the extraordinary collection of joint boards which the Secretary of State and the Government propose.
On 11 April the right hon. Gentleman also said that
the referendum would have been presented as a referendum on the substance of the issue.
I do not see how we could responsibly consider letting the 1985 elections proceed in such circumstances." — [Official Report, 11 April 1984; Vol. 58, c. 410.]
I make is absolutely clear that I take a different view. It would be absolutely right and proper for elections to go forward and for people to decide whether they support this system for local government in their area. In refusing to allow the electors to make such a choice the Secretary of State is saying that the man in Whitehall knows best. We have been told over and over again that that is not the Conservative party's philosophy. We have always been told that the town hall knows best, not the man in Whitehall. On this occasion the town hall is not even being consulted. The man in Whitehall will impose his solution on local people without their being given the opportunity to express their view as to whether it is good, bad or indifferent. The view that is being imposed on them does not even have the benefit of an independent inquiry or impartial judgment. It is the direct result of a throw-away sentence in an election manifesto. On the basis of that, and without proper forethought and consideration, this legislation is being thrust down the throats not only of the House but of the people in the metropolitan areas.
It is an open secret that when the Secretary of State moved into his office in Marsham street and asked for the papers about the abolition of the GLC and the metropolitan counties so that he could understand the case and know what preparatory work had been undertaken he was told that no such papers existed, so he had to cobble the thing together as he went along. That shows in the legislation.
6.45 pm
There is one other detailed point on which I agree strongly with the hon. Member for Tyne Bridge. He referred to Lords amendment No. 6, which gives the Secretary of State the power to reduce the quorum in the GLC and the metropolitan counties during the interim period to enable them to go on transacting business. It is part of what the Secretary of State delightfully called counter-obstructionist measures. The hon. Gentleman rightly drew attention to the dangers that flow from enabling the Secretary of State to interfere with the standing orders of directly elected local authorities. If the Secretary of State is to be allowed to reduce the quorum, he might tell us what criteria he will work on, for example, wherever two or three are gathered together. Will that be the quorum in those local authorities in future?
I should like to make one general point about the Lords amendments. I and other hon. Members object strongly to the fact that the Bill is radically different from the one that left the House on 22 May. The old Bill was about cancelling elections and creating bodies to govern the metropolitan areas in the interim period before abolition. It had only one minor financial clause, which gave the London boroughs the power to challenge the GLC's audited accounts. The new Bill extends the life of the existing councils and introduces major financial controls over their ability to dispose of land, to enter into contracts and to spend discretionary funds under section 137 of the Local Government Act 1972. In other words, the Bill's purpose is different from that of the original Bill.
We are being given insufficient opportunity to examine the detailed new provisions. The original Bill had one complete day for Second Reading, three days in Committee on the Floor of the House, including an all-night sitting, and a whole day for Third Reading. It added-up to 51½ hours of detailed scrutiny of those proposals, many of which have now disappeared. The new Bill is unlikely to achieve much more than one eighth of that time in scrutiny. The original Bill was given its First Reading on 30 March and its Third Reading on 22 May. In other words, there were seven whole weeks during which the Bill went through the House. The new Bill will have had just about seven days between printing and completion of parliamentary consideration.
The normal process of Second Reading, Committee, Report and Third Reading is being concertina-ed to just one stage, which we are going through tonight. This is a dangerous process for matters as important as the method of governing metropolitan areas. It unduly limits our opportunities to scrutinise the legislation carefully and to table detailed amendments to it. Apart from our objections to other aspects of the Lords amendments, those grounds alone are sufficient for us to vote against them. We shall certainly do so.

Mr. Tony Banks: There cannot be many people left in this country who are either honest or sane and who are not fully aware of the real reason why the GLC and the metropolitan counties are under threat and why the elections are being abolished. There is no economic sense behind the proposals for abolition. There is no social sense and certainly no local government sense. The only thing behind abolition is the Prime Minister herself. This evening we shall consider what amounts to the reduction of local government to the level of low farce. I should have thought that the Ministers responsible were the most appropriate so to reduce local government to that level.
The Prime Minister clearly despises any sort of opposition. She is a true authoritarian, and makes a great virtue out of it. My hon. Friend the Member for Tyne Bridge (Mr. Cowans), who made a most amusing but relevant speech, tricked one of the Conservative Members into saying why the elections and the GLC were being abolished. He said that it was because of the GLC and the other metropolitan authorities were controlled by a party and individuals in a party with which Conservative Members do not agree. That is their only true and real justification. It has been said many times before, and I shall say it again, that the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry got it absolutely right when he said:
The Greater London Council is typical of this new, modern, divisive version of socialism. It must be defeated. So we shall abolish the Greater London Council".
One can hardly accuse the Secretary of State for the Environment of producing great intellectual justification for the abolition of the GLC and the metropolitan counties. It would be more fitting if he adopted the honesty and straightforward approach of his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry so that the country could know precisely why we are considering this legislation.
During the 1983 election, the Prime Minister thought that there were cheap votes to be gained by promising to put Mr. Ken Livingstone and his colleagues in their place. There is no hard evidence that at that election the abolition

of the GLC swayed the opinions of many people when they voted. The proposal might have won favour among the mad-dog journalists on The Sun, the Daily Mail and the Daily Express, which now seem to be the only source of information about the GLC upon which the Secretary of State relies. Undoubtedly, the abolition of the GLC might have pleased the assorted psychopaths who attend the Tory party conference, but there is little evidence that the electors as a whole were swayed in their masses by this issue to support the Conservative party at the election.
Whatever the Prime Minister may have thought in 1983, the story today is different. The recent opinion polls in London have shown that 69 per cent. of Londoners are against the abolition of the GLC elections. Londoners clearly want those elections. One would have hoped that, as a result of that, Conservative Members would throw up their hands and say that the elections would not be abolished, but as we know, having a majority of over 140 means "never having to say you're sorry."
The Tory party will regret bitterly its failure to call a halt to the Prime Minister's obsession with local government. She understands little, if anything, about local government service, and cares even less. In a recent Prime Minister's Question Time, which was one of her more dodgy efforts, she was stumbling around with grant-related assessments and targets that she was reading from the Department of the Environment's press release. It came over to us as though she were reading Sanskrit. She understands nothing about local government, and many Tory Members share that ignorance.
The GLC abolition in exchange for the defeat of the Tory party in the next election is something that encourages me greatly in the watches of the night. I would consider that to be fair exchange, but unfortunately in the short run it is of little comfort to the communities and organisations in London that are likely to be sorely hurt by the Government's plan. It is clear that the GLC, and the people of London, want those elections next May.
To abolish elections in advance of the abolition of the authority shows a breathtaking contempt for local democracy, for voters and for Parliament. It is rubbish for the Secretary of State to say that this is how it has been done in the past. In the past, the decision to cancel elections has been taken at the same time as the final parliamentary decision to effect a successor authority.
The Secretary of State has argued that the successor bodies in London and elsewhere already exist — in London they are the boroughs and outside they are the districts. However, it is not the individual boroughs in London that will be inheriting the bulk of the GLC powers, should the GLC be abolished, but the joint boards, or Government quangos. The boards will be made up of members from different boroughs. Parliament will not know the composition of the joint boards or the quangos before the abolition of the GLC.
The GLC is a directly elected body, and joint boards, even if they are made up of members from other directly elected bodies, are of their nature indirectly elected, while quangos are appointed. Nobody could seriously argue that this is a proper and fitting substitute for the abolition of a directly elected local authority—the GLC.
Political expediency is the only reason for the abolition of the GLC. The Government know that they would be smashed into the ground if they faced an election in May next year. As my hon. Friend the Member for Tyne Bridge said, they know that they are going to lose and as they do


not want to risk anything the elections will not be held. The Government have said that it is inconvenient or inappropriate to have an election for a body that will exist for only 11 months—from May 1985 to April 1986. Three points need to made on that idea.
First, what is wrong with 11 months of democracy? What time limit do the Government set on democracy? They think that 11 months is too short, but there have been people who have called for annual Parliaments. Are we to say that the 11-month period is wrong because it is too short a time to have a democratic accountability and control? Perhaps the Tory party prefers these things to be decided by market forces, or perhaps it is something for the tinpot dictator sitting in Downing street to decide.
Secondly, no one in their right mind — clearly, I exclude Ministers from this accusation—believes that the abolition of the GLC can be achieved by April 1986. The hon. Member for Woolwich (Mr. Cartwright) made that clear. The Government have set no time limit for the successor body. The Secretary of State came to the Dispatch Box today and said that the abolition would still proceed on the day that the Government have appointed, that is to say 1 April 1986—a most appropriate date. However, I do not believe that there is any way that that can be achieved. The GLC is not some recent creation. It inherits nearly 100 years of directly elected local government in London, and it cannot easily be replaced.
Thirdly, there is no guarantee that the majority of the GLC members, whether they are Tory or Labour, will accept an extension of office. At county hall, we make it clear—I speak as a member of the GLC—that we were elected for four years, and our mandate expires in May 1985. It is only the electorate that can legitimately extend our period of office. There is no legitimacy in the diktat of a clapped-out, third-rate Minister, forced by the other place to extend the life of the GLC. Unless the Labour movement requires me to remain at county hall, I shall end my period of office next May and there is nothing that the totalitarians opposite will he able to do to stop me.
If the GLC members stay, it will be at the request of the Labour movement, and then only to frustrate the Government's plans. In 12 months' time, whoever is then Secretary of State for the Environment will be forced to come back to the House and ask leave to extend the life of the present GLC once again. It will not be a question of being a member of the GLC for another two or three years, because the Government may then have to decide to institute hereditary GLC members so that we can clear up the mess into which the Government have got us.
I have been a member of the GLC for the past 14 years. I am disgusted and appalled at the way that the Government have reduced the concept of local government service to a low farce. The confusion in local government is there because of the actions that Ministers have taken. They will live to regret this, because there are Labour Members who have feeling and compassion for local government. We shall not allow Conservative Members to forget what they have done to local government. One day, we shall have our revenge.

Mr. Robert N. Wareing: What is so striking about this debate—and it must be unique in this second Tory Parliament—is the fact that Conservative Members do not have the guts to take part in the debate to defend the Government's position. It is clear that they are under strict orders from Central Office

to keep quiet. Conservative Members leave it to the Secretary of State to defend the Government's position, because they are not encouraged to do so.
This absence of Conservative Members is the final result of the increasing pressure coming from the daughter of darkness, who inhabits No. 10 Downing street, who wants to muzzle Conservative Members. The only defeat that the Government have had on this Bill has been in the other place, which is proof positive that, despite the tremendous feeling against the Bill in the country, it is only in that House, where the rule of the so-called Iron Lady does not extend, that there has been any real brake on the Government's policies.
When Lord Whitelaw introduced the Bill in the other place his excuse for it was that there was no time to get the main Bill through before the 1985 elections were due. Whose timetable is it? I thought that the Government claimed that they had a manifesto commitment to carry out the abolition of the GLC and the metropolitan counties within the lifetime of this Parliament. I understood that the life of this Parliament could conceivably be— heaven help us — five years, and during that time the Government could get legislation on the statute book.
My hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) said that Conservative Members do not seem to understand local government. They certainly do not understand the work involved in local government reorganisation — not to speak of the work of civil servants—that will be necessary to put the legislation into effect. What economic catastrophe will befall the country if, on 1 April 1986, the legislation has not reached the statute book? The 3·5 million people outside this building who are unemployed, the millions who await jobs and hope, must wonder why we spend so many hours in the House discussing a measure such as this. There can be only one reason—that the Government are blinded by their own political prejudices and are hell-bent on carrying the law through.
We have been pressing in the amendments some of which are not being debated, for a full inquiry into the cost-effectiveness of the changes that the Government are planning to introduce next Session with the abolition Bill. The Secretary of State, speaking to the Westminster, North Tory party association on 21 June, posed the question:
Why did the GLC not hire a firm of accountants to prove that abolition would not save anything?
He answered:
Because they knew very well that any reputable firm would find millions of pounds could indeed be saved.
The GLC cannot win. If it employed a firm such as Coopers and Lybrand, it would be accused of squandering London ratepayers' money. But the metropolitan counties did employ Coopers and Lybrand—a reputable firm of accoutants. The Secretary of State has refused to deal with criticisms in that report. He criticises the GLC for riot doing what he himself refuses to do.
Speaking in the other place, Lord Bellwin said:
one cannot tell now what will be the decisions taken on spending by local authorities for the first year when they will be taking over."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 16 July 1984; Vol. 454, c. 1229.]
Again, he refuses to give any estimate whatever of the cost-effectiveness of the Government's plans. Surely the case for saving on the rates must rest largely on the savings


in administrative costs by introducing joint boards of district councils and London boroughs to take over the functions of the present GLC and metropolitan counties.
Merseyside Commissioned an independent study by Dr. David Kermode and Mr. Michael Manning of Liverpool polytechnic's department of social studies. That study found that the burden of proof for change has not been satisfied, that there are strong reasons for the services to be provided on a Merseyside scale and by a multi-purpose authority. It found that the performance, if judged by standard of service, economic use of resources, problem solving and democratic accountability, is for the most part satisfactory and does not justify the proposed reform.
A public opinion survey carried out on Merseyside found that there was not a mandate among the public for the abolition of the county council. Public opinion is solidly behind the county council to ensure its survival. Of those polled by a reputable opinion poll, 70·3 per cent. were in favour of the retention of Merseyside county council. I can understand why the Secretary of State does not want to test the opinion of the people of Merseyside. The people of Merseyside, certainly of the district of Liverpool, have served him one bloody nose this year, and he does not want another next year. He knows full well that the Labour-controlled Merseyside county council would be returned with a resounding majority if it were to fight an election on the paving Bill.
There are other tests of opinion. The Secretary of State is interested in safeguarding ratepayers. He might well consult ratepayers' organisations. For example, has he consulted the National Union of Ratepayers' Associations? It has stated:
Before any fundamental alterations are embarked upon, evidence should be produced to show that the hopes of savings and better value for money have every chance of being realised in the future. The onus is on the Government to prove that its reorganisation plans will give …. ratepayers a better deal".
In its response to the White Paper, "Streamlining the Cities" the NURA said:
nothing should be done to reduce the direct accountability of any local authority and any changes in structure should be made only in so far as it can be proved that they would certainly result, not simply in no increase, but in a significant decrease, in the costs of operating the local services".
I hope that it will not be lost on the country and that, apart from The Sun, the Daily Express and the Daily Mail, perhaps the media tomorrow will highlight the fact that this is one debate in which Conservative Members are not prepared to come to the aid of the Government. It is a scandal that in peace-time democratic elections should be foregone in the interests of sheer party spite, for that is what we face in the House tonight. The Government cannot push the matter to one side for ever. When the Conservative party has the guts to face the people nationally, it will be condemned on its economic policy and because its idea of democracy is skin deep.

Mr. William O'Brien: It is only right that I should speak about the feelings of the electorate and the ratepayers of west Yorkshire towards the Government's policy on the abolition of the elections to the county council next year. In doing so, it is significant that there is no Tory Member for west Yorkshire present in the debate on this important issue, nor is there a Liberal Member present. It is only right that we should express the views of the electorate of west Yorkshire on this matter.
In west Yorkshire, we have five metropolitan district councils. The county council was Labour-controlled after the local government reorganisation, passed into Conservative control and is now again Labour-controlled. It is, therefore, not possible to argue that the electors of west Yorkshire do not understand local government or do not have opinions as to how it should be administered. We do not need the Secretary of State to tell us how our local authorities should operate. With the exception of Wakefield, the same is true of district councils—they have been controlled by different parties. The people of west Yorkshire should be given the opportunity to decide next May who should administer west Yorkshire. The county council's policies that are aimed at reducing unemployment are important to the area. It has worked with industrialists and commercial undertakings to reduce unemployment, which now stands about 13 per cent. The council is conscious of the problem and abolition of next May's elections will make it harder for the council to reverse the Government's policy of creating high unemployment.
We are told that, as a result of the general election, the Government were given a mandate to abolish the metropolitan county councils. That might be the Conservatives' interpretation but they were certainly given no mandate to abolish elections in 1985. On 7 April, Leeds polytechnic carried out a survey in west Yorkshire. More than 1,000 electors were asked what they considered would be the most important issue if a general election was held the next day. In its report it said:
only 1·6 per cent. of the sample identified local government reform as an important issue.
When the sample was asked about the importance of unemployment, nuclear weapons, local government reform, housing, the Common Market and law and order, local government reform was regarded as the least important. The Government insist, however, that local government reform is one of the most important issues, as hard-pressed ratepayers demand it. That is not true for west Yorkshire. Local authorities within the metropolitan area have expressed their views, which I share, to the Government. In response to the White Paper "Streamlining the Cities", Bradford city council declared:
That this Council views with concern the Government's intention to abolish the Greater London and Metropolitan County Councils as being a further inroad into democratic control of local services.
It went on to press for a Commission of inquiry. It should be noted that the majority party on that council is Tory. A Tory-controlled district council in west Yorkshire is asking for an inquiry into whether the Government are right about abolition and especially about stopping elections next May. Ratepayers in west Yorkshire would welcome such an inquiry and the opportunity to decide their destiny through the ballot box next May.
7.15 pm
The Secretary of State and the Minister have said that it would be a waste of ratepayers' money and undemocratic to have elections that enable a local authority to continue for 12 months. It is highly questionable whether the Government will be able to transfer services to district councils, joint boards or quangos in the specified time, and it is clear that district councils in west Yorkshire will not co-operate. Not long ago there were two general elections in one year. If it was right for a Government to be elected for just a few months,


how can the Secretary of State or the Prime Minister insist that it is wrong to have local authority elections in May? I appeal to Tory and Liberal Members from west Yorkshire, who are all absent, carefully to consider the needs and wishes of the people of west Yorkshire. They want an election next year and an inquiry into what the Government propose.

Mr. Simon Hughes: On 10 May last year, the Prime Minister announced that Parliament was to be dissolved. The minute of the committee of the Secretary of State and his colleagues—MISC 95—has now been revealed for all to see. I refer to the ministerial group on the abolition of the GLC and the metropolitan county councils. It noted:
the cabinet agreed … that the Government should introduce the main abolition legislation early in the 1984–85 session of Parliament, with the aim of completing the transfer of the GLC and metropolitan county functions by 1 April 1986.
The report from which I am quoting, which appeared in The Guardian on 26 March 1984, has not been denied by the Secretary of State. It continues:
The minute makes it clear that at this stage Mr. Jenkin was planning legislation to allow Mr. Ken Livingstone's GLC and Labour administrations in the metropolitan counties an extra year of office until abolition could be effected in 1986.
On 13 May 1983, Parliament was dissolved. On 9 June, with a reduced majority, a Conservative Government were returned. They had lost support since 1979.
Three days before the Dissolution of Parliament— after the announcement of Dissolution and that famous weekend when the Prime Minister went to Chequers— there appeared in the Conservative party election manifesto a commitment to abolish the seven county councils. The commitment did not extend in any shape or form of words to the abolition of elections. That did not feature then, and it did not feature during the election campaign. The Government were returned to office.
On 26 March 1984 The Guardian, referring to the Secretary of State, said:
His thinking had developed, however, by the time of his second minute to the Prime Minister on September 20.
'Elections to the GLC and MCCs are due in May 1985. The (Ministerial) Group are agreed that they cannot be allowed to go ahead: other objections apart, abolition would be a major issue in the elections, so that there would be a major public debate going on after the House of Commons had voted for a second reading of the abolition Bill.'".
Apparently the Cabinet was divided. One view was that those on the county councils should be substituted by other nominees. That was the proposal that the Government first put to the House. The second view was that the lives of the present authorities should be extended. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Yes. Conservative Members can rightly claim that they know all about this, but I remind them of it because it reflects on their present views.
The article continues:
A small majority of the Group, however, considered that both our own supporters and the wider public would find it incomprehensible that we should, in effect, extend the terms of office of the GLC and the MCCs. Moreover, to do so would provide those bodies with scope for obstruction at a time when this would be most damaging to our policies. They therefore favoured substitution.
The Secretary of State and others had the majority of the group consider the legislation. Clearly they came to the view that the wider public and the Government's supporters would find it incomprehensible to extend the period in office of the councils. Yet, today, that is exactly

what the Secretary of State asks us to approve. That is the present state of the proposals since they were amended in the other place.

Mr. Heddle: I am sure that the House enjoys listening to the hon. Gentleman recycling newspaper cuttings of about 12 months ago. So that the House knows where the alliance stands on this matter, will the hon. Gentleman confirm that the alliance manifesto, on which he fought the general election in June 1983, states:
We propose … abolishing one of the existing tiers of local government. This will be done by stages against the background of our proposals for the development of regional government. It would inevitably involve the eventual abolition of the Metropolitan Counties and the GLC.
Is that a correct summary of the alliance manifesto or not?

Mr. Hughes: The hon. Gentleman knows that it is. He read the manifesto to the House. The hon. Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron) is reading it now. We said that quite clearly and we have said it for many years. We believe that there should be regional government throughout Britain. We would legislate for it. Regional goverment is required for many purposes. Once it was in place and there was proper regional government in London, the north-west, the north-east, East Anglia and the south-west, the GLC and MCCs would not be needed in their present form because greater, more powerful and effective councils would take over the regional activities currently dealt with by the MCCs and the GLC. There is no inconsistency in that.
A valid question was raised about the difference between the GLC and a regional council for London.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. This is interesting, but it is a long way from the amendment that we are debating.

Mr. Hughes: As you know, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I was on the straight and narrow before I was interrupted by the hon. Member for Mid-Staffordshire (Mr. Heddle).
We are debating next year's local authority elections. It is clear that local authorities have suffered and are increasingly suffering from a reduction of their powers, as local government is generally doing at the hands of this centralist Conservative Government, who act completely inconsistently with their philosophy. The Greater London council and other councils would be replaced by bodies which would in areas such as London and the metropolitan counties, effectively deal at local level with the regional functions appropriate to them.
Last autumn the Cabinet considered and then rejected those proposals. Yet, today, we are being asked to adopt them. The proposals before us about a month ago were totally unacceptable. The amendment seeks to replace those proposals. At that time we considered a system of nominated authorities which, as the Secretary of State so blandly put it, would, as an inevitable and unfortunate consequence of the proposal, change a London Labour administration to a Tory one, and alter the balance of power, although not the party in control, in the other six areas.
Those proposals for nominated authorities were before us. Many Conservative Back Bench Members protested vigorously that that was abort the mast appalling constitutional proposal that any Government had suggested for many years. Happily, our protests, sometimes made during many hours, were reflected in a


vote on the measure in another place. The House of Lords refused to accept nominated replacements. It insisted that those who ran democratic local authorities should be elected democratically. It recognised the objections to interfering with the process. It therefore proposed the amendment that is before us now. The amendment allows the continuation of seven councils and all of their members in office until April 1986.
That presents a considerable number of problems. To have elected bodies for four years and 11 months rather than for four years is preferable to having elected bodies for four years and nominated bodies thereafter. That is right. Therefore, the amendment is better than the original proposals. But the Secretary of State cannot suggest that that has precedent, is appropriate, democratic, just or that most of the electorate find it acceptable.
Throughout the passage of the Bill the Government have argued that there is precedent for what is being done.
Many of us have argued that that is clearly not the case. The reason why there is no precedent for what the Government propose is that on the only two relevant occasions—first, when the GLC was set up in the 1960s and, secondly, when the metropolitan counties were set up in the 1970s, both by Tory Governments — there remained in office elected councillors after Royal Assent had been given to a Bill to change the functions of local Government.
7.30 pm
I can confirm, from a research note provided for hon Members by the Library, that this proposal is unique. We rely on the services and integrity of the Library staff. The research note, in relation to the original proposals, says:
These interim arrangements are unique in modern local government organisation in that full elections are to be cancelled to local authorities which are to continue alone for a period beyond the date of these elections.
That was true of the original proposal, but the research note makes it clear that, even with the amendment, the only elections cancelled were cancelled
in the period between royal assent for the reorganisation Acts in 1963 or 1972 and the time of the new elections.
The provision is without precedent and hon. Members should be willing to say so, although this is the last step down the road for this legislation. It is the last procedural occasion for us, and it is noticeable that many Conservative Back-Bench Members who spoke against this provision are now silent, with no justification for being so, except, presumably, their own convenience.
At least the Lords managed to improve the Bill. If one thing is clear from the way in which the procedures of the House have been used, it is that any argument for a single-Chamber government must be rejected, as it would be a prescription for tyranny by a minority. Any arguments —they come often from Labour Members—that suggest only one Chamber——

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Regional government is bad enough, but it is even worse to start talking about whether we should have a bi-cameral system. Will the hon. Gentleman confine his remarks to the amendment before the House?

Mr. Hughes: It is a compliment to the system that we have a second Chamber. The point must be recorded, because the Secretary of State introduced this subject into

the debate at the beginning of his speech on the amendment. It is vital to have two Chambers so that such matters cannot be steamrollered—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Irrespective of what was said earlier in the debate, which I did not hear, I am in the Chair now and I must ask the hon. Gentleman to observe the procedures of the House.

Mr. Cecil Franks: May I bring the hon. Gentleman back to something that he said a moment ago? I apologise for having missed some of his earlier comments. In 1967, when I was a member of Salford city council, I was elected an alderman for a term of six years. That term expired in 1973, but in the event it was extended to 1974. What was so unique about that occasion that cannot be applied now?

Mr. Hughes: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman must not take up the time of the House making such explanations. I hope that he will now address the amendment before the House.

Mr. Hughes: I am happy to say that I explained that point a few moments ago, and it will appear on the record.
There is a fundamental objection to the Government's substantive proposal, because of practicality. The Secretary of State is presuming that Parliament will do his work for him. He is presuming that by 1 April 1986, Parliament will have passed a Bill that we have not seen and the clauses of which we have no knowledge, except that they are causing Department of the Environment staff to tear out their hair in an attempt to make them fit to present to the House. We are led to believe that the Bill will be extremely long and that the proposals contained in it will receive Royal Assent after the Bill's passage through both Houses of Parliament.
No Secretary of State, and no Prime Minister, has the right to assume that Parliament will agree to unseen and unpublished proposals until such time as its agreement has been obtained. The principal practical objection is that if a proposal is passed which requires the terms of office of people elected for four years to be continued for a further year, and if by 1 April 1986 the substantive legislation has not been passed, we shall either need different legislation or there will be no one in office, the councils will not continue and there will be no successors.
That is a practical problem, as their Lordships made clear—

Mr. Boyes: What is this debate about?

Mr. Hughes: That question might reflect the fact that some people treat a matter of constitutional importance with levity, not with seriousness. The debate is about a matter of which Labour Members often complain—the granting of too much power to Ministers, extending the terms of office of people who are elected for only limited terms of office, and not allowing next year's elections to go ahead because the Government do not wish them to go ahead. If they are to be believed, Labour Members wish the elections to take place next May. [HON. MEMBERS: "Bring back Bob Mellish."] I thought that the Labour party was moving to the Left, but I am beginning to wonder. The Government want the amendment to succeed because it is clear that they are unwilling, although they know that


some people cannot imagine why the GLC and the metropolitan counties should be allowed to continue, to put it to the test before the electorate.
I challenge the Secretary of State in two simple ways—

Mr. Barron: Resign and fight a by-election.

Mr. Hughes: I asked the right hon. Gentleman to do that previously, but it did not produce the correct result. I would be quite happy for the Secretary of State to resign and fight a by-election. I can predict that the Labour party would not win it.
The elections, in which the Secretary of State does not believe, would have given the Conservative party an opportunity to release London and the metropolitan counties from the control of people whom the Government believe are abusing their position, although they are simply carrying out the legislation introduced by the Secretary of State and his predecessors. If the Secretary of State believed that elections next May would give the electorate an opportunity to agree with his statements that the GLC and the metropolitan counties are spending extravagantly and must be controlled, he would allow them to take place.
On 20 September there will be four by-elections to the GLC. If those elections are won by Opposition parties on the GLC, they will have a chance to control it. If it fought and won those four elections, the Conservative party could gain control of the GLC on 20 September. Therefore, it has no excuse for going through this charade, with financial amendments which should have been in other legislation such as the Rates Bill. The Conservatives are not prepared to go to the ballot box within less than two months to put their proposals and arguments before the electorate.
It is inconsistent and unprincipled for the Secretary of State to use this place, and all this paraphernalia of legislation, to extend the terms of office of Labour councillors, who form the majority in all the seven authorities with which we are concerned. They are people whom he criticises daily—usually on the basis of press reports, unsupported by facts. It is ridiculous for him to go down that road when he is not even prepared to challenge those Labour councillors on the streets and doorsteps of London in September. We have made it clear that, even though we would not have called the elections, those elections are there to be fought. That is the best way of determining whether the proposals are acceptable.
The point has been made that there is no logic in saying that electing an authority for 11 months is without principle or unjustified. Many have been the Parliaments elected for a much shorter period than that. Parliaments have been terminated, for various reasons, after a number of months, usually at the request of the Prime Minister. Many have been the occasions when people elected for four years would have liked the ability to change their policies. Having been elected on a manifesto, and circumstances having changed, they may have wanted to put a new set of proposals before the electorate.
Many people in local government — members and officers — do not believe that it will be possible, between 1985 and 1986, to make all the detailed arrangements which are required to transfer enormous authorities, together with their assets and personnel, to other functions. Many people are saying that they cannot

be expected to accept a period of rapid transition of about 11 months, and probably less. The major bill will probably not complete its passage through this House until after May next year, possibly in July or August, or even as late as October or November. It will not be possible for them, in the short time remaining after that, to adapt in the way that is needed. Many of them will be looking for new jobs. Many of the senior officers will not be able to give their undivided attention to the transfer of powers from their authorities. They will be out of work. They will have no authorities to work for.
We have not yet been given the details, but we are told that a number of direct boards are to be set up. Their members will have to be recruited. All that work has to be done by Whitehall — by the already overworked bureaucratic machine in Marsham street. It will have to be co-ordinated by civil servants. The Secretary of State might argue that it will be at their convenience, but, according to the leaks from his Department, that is riot what people are saying. It is that practical reason that so validly and clearly reinforces the constitutional argument that an amendment tabled at such a late stage in the proceedings is unacceptable to this House. As the hon. Member for Tyne Bridge (Mr. Cowans) validly said, the amendment was tabled under pressure. It is an amendment with which the Secretary of State does not agree, but we are being asked to accept it.
As has often been made clear, the truth is that the Secretary of State and his colleagues are unwilling to accept political opposition when it is anything like as effective as present legislation has permitted it to be. The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Bristol, West (Mr. Waldegrave), has often had his book "The Binding of Leviathan", quoted back at him. It dealt with the abuse of centralised power. He wrote in it that one of the things most interesting about conservativism—which, to use his words, is an aspect of liberalism —is
its constitutional theory designed to preserve the capacity to dissent. Conservatives value it from fundamental scepticism about the possibility of determining final truth".
It is the refusal of the Government to allow dissent, and to allow that dissent to be expressed in the ballot box, that is the fundamental reason why this measure and this amendment are unacceptable.
We have before us amendments which make the Bill substantially different from the Bill as it started in the House. That is the last form of constitutional outrage that the Secretary of State is perpetuating in this legislation. He now has a Bill to give him far greater powers than he sought at the beginning.
The Secretary of State should not abuse this House. If he succeeds tonight, or tomorrow, he should think twice before coming back to the House with any measure which permits him to have power at the expense of the people who were elected to run the councils. He should not claim support for his arguments on the basis of his own prejudices, as opposed to the facts available to him, which clearly were not the same a year ago, when he argued exactly the opposite of what he is arguing tonight.

Mr. Boyes: It is interesting that no one has been rising on the Conservative Benches. I do not make a practice of counting the number of hon. Members present in the Chamber, but I find it remarkable that none of the


Conservative Back Benchers wishes to take part in the debate on the amendment. I do not think, as one of my hon. Friends suggested, that they have been gagged. I think that they have no heart for the Government's propositions. It is interesting that those propositions were rejected recently in the other House, where the Conservatives have an enormous inbuilt majority. That shows the frailty of the Government's case.
The Secretary of State's comments in relation to Tyne and Wear county council were disgraceful, unfounded and scandalous. He should not have talked about county councils in the way that he did. He may not have mentioned specifically the Tyne and Wear county council but he talked about the metropolitan counties, which of course include Tyne and Wear. I thought that it was equally disgusting of the Secretary of State to compare elected councillors, who receive an attendance allowance of about £14 a day, with friends of the Conservative party who are making massive amounts of money by speculation.
I am sure that many of my council colleagues will find the Secretary of State's language rather frightening, as I do. He referred to a scorched earth policy and to counter-obstruction. It is worrying when a Secretary of State, in an important debate, is reduced to using such terms.
The Secretary of State referred to my friends in Tyne and Wear as extremists. That allegation was dealt with adequately by my hon. Friend the Member for Tyne Bridge (Mr. Cowans). The Secretary of State also accused them of being irresponsible. Indeed, he suggested that Members of Parliament were frightened of some of the councillors. That is rather juvenile language for a Secretary of State to use. You based your whole case—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. As the hon. Gentleman knows, he should be addressing the Chair and he should not bring me personally into these matters by using the word "you".

Mr. Boyes: I would not wish to do that, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
The only piece of evidence that the Secretary of State had was a story in a newspaper. Is he one of Jasper Carrott's Sun readers. I think we shall have to put the Secretary of State into that category.
I am wearing with some pride the tie of the Tyne and Wear council. The councillors do not fall into the category mentioned by the Secretary of State; they have represented the needs of the people in their area. Many of the people are unemployed and living in poverty. With limited resources, the councillors have tried to introduce policies to alleviate some of the problems.
The Conservative party is trying to smash the transport system in the Tyne and Wear. It is one of the best integrated passenger transport systems in the world—yet because it is so good, the Secretary of State and his colleagues are abusing it.
The Secretary of State mentioned section 137 funds, and I shall deal with that in more detail on another amendment. There is evidence even from Conservative Members about the Tyne and Wear council. The hon. Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth), in his book "Politics on the Rates", said clearly that that council had used its section 137 funds in a proper way and to the benefit of people in the area.
The Secretary of State spoke about councils wasting money. I presume that when he went for his cup of tea he read the The Standard which, in its bold headline, said,
Fly back to stop Labour".
The article said that three Conservative councillors were being flown back from Italy, France and, possibly, Spain to attend a single meeting of the council. When the Under-Secretary replies, I hope that he will tell us whether he thinks it better that a council should spend money on protecting and creating jobs and on providing one of the best integrated passenger transport systems in the world rather than flying councillors around Europe to attend a meeting. Who is using the money more sensibly? Which council is benefiting the people in its area?
I cannot understand the Government's strategy in rejecting the ballot box. The Government's economic strategy is to leave matters to the market place. Surely there is a relationship between that philosophy and the question of people voting in local elections. Surely, under the Government's philosophy, if the rates are too high the electors would not vote for the councillors who set the high rates. That is the exact parallel with what you believe in —[Interruption]—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I wish that the hon. Gentleman would not keep attributing things to me. He should remember that he should address the House in the third person.

Mr. Boyes: I apologise, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Not one Conservative Member has spoken. If Conservative Members wish to speak, they can do so when I sit down.
I cannot understand why the Government will not allow a ballot so that the people can judge whether the Government's policies are acceptable. There is no precedent for what the Government are doing.
During the debate in another place Baroness Birk asked about precedents for cancelling elections, and Viscount Whitelaw replied:
and I say this at once, to concede the point made by the Noble Baroness—on those occasions the cancellation was done in the main Bill for abolishing the authorities."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 16 July 1984; Vol. 454, c. 1185.]
The Government have no case. They are basing part of their argument on one report in a newspaper, which may or may not be correct. The thousands of peers in another place do not agree with what the Government are doing. Not one Conservative Member has had the guts to stand up and defend the Secretary of State.

Mr. Chris Smith: I shall be brief. Unlike some hon. Members who occupy the minority parties' Benches, I do not believe that the value of words lies in their volume, length or piety.
I wish to make three brief points about this crucial amendment which changes the entire Bill from its original form. First, the amendment and the new system enshrined in it are wholly impractical. The amendment imposes a deadline of 1 April 1986, which the Secretary of State must, in his heart of hearts, know to be unimplementable. Even if the House agreed to the passage of the main abolition legislation, it is a charade to imagine that the entire apparatus of the GLC and the metropolitan counties could be dismantled and sensibly transferred in 11 months. The amendment puts the date of 1 April 1986 irrevocably into the legislation. If that is accepted, no other option is open to the Secretary of State, the Government or the House.
Secondly, the amendment is unconstitutional. It clearly prejudges any decision that the House may make on the main abolition legislation. It also prejudges any decision that the House may make about the time scale for any legislation. If this House or another place decided that 11 months would be too short a time in which to dismantle the operations, and decided that two years would be more sensible, the Government's hands would be tied by the amendment.
Finally, and most importantly, both the Bill in its original form, and with the proposed amendment, would remove the democratic rights of Londoners and the residents of metropolitan counties to vote in May.
The Secretary of State must tell us why the elections should not take place. On the many occasions that we have asked him that question he has simply said that it would be absurd for the elections to be held. Is it absurd to say that the people of London should exercise their vote through the ballot box? Is it absurd to say they should be entitled to decide who runs London and what powers they should have? Is it absurd that they should pass a verdict on the Government's plans for their city and their council? Of course it is not absurd. It is the right, decent and democratic thing to do. The Government have failed to pick up the challenge of the House of Lords. Instead, they have proposed a measure which is as undemocratic as the original. That is why I oppose the Lords' amendment and shall wholeheartedly support the amendment tabled by my right hon. and hon. Friends.

8 pm

Mr. Eric Deakins: I shall be brief. Surely it is unprecedented in the history of Britain for one democratic body to seek to abolish another democratic body, for reasons of pure spite and dislike of the policies pursued by that body. That is particularly true of the Government's attitude to the GLC and is probably also true of their attitude to the metropolitan counties.
Not only do the Government object to the policies of those bodies, but to the effect of the policies on the people. The Government object to the popularity of those policies. The authorities are showing what can be done by a popular administration with a mandate and a population that believes in it. There is a lesson there for other democratic bodies such as this House.
The Government have given two reasons for wanting to abolish elections. The first is to secure a change in the political control of the GLC. That proposition has been defeated in the House of Lords. The second reason is that elections are considered inappropriate in the context of the abolition of the GLC and the metropolitan counties. How can it be inappropriate for the people of London and the metropolitan counties to be given a chance to comment on the record of the administrations that they elected four years ago? Surely that is a democratic right. How can it be inappropriate for people to have a say in the future of the authorities? The people are being given no voice. The last election was several years ago and opinions will have changed. They should be tested in the only democratic way—by the ballot box and not through public opinion polls.
How can the Secretary of State be so positive as to put April 1986 in the Bill without any provision for qualifying that date? I remind the Secretary of State of the unfortunate experience which overtook the Secretary of State for Transport. The Secretary of State for Transport, his junior

Minister, civil servants and press officers told the people of London and the metropolitan counties for months after the general election last year that concessionary fares for pensioners and disabled people would be left for the London boroughs and constituent local authorities in each of the metropolitan counties to decide. The pressure of public opinion forced the Secretary of State for Transport to make a major change in policy and he had to include in the Bill setting up the London regional transport authority a statutory provision to back up his claim that the concessionary fares scheme would continue.
If the Secretary of State for Transport can be caught out by changing events and by not being able to foresee the pressure of public opinion, how can the Secretary of State for the Environment be so God-like and say that 1 April 1986 is the closing date and that there is no need to consider the possibility of extension?
In his own interests, why has not the Secretary of State included a provision for amending the date, preferably by affirmative resolution? Why is the Secretary of State so arrogantly sure that on 1 April 1986 the whole messy business of transferring power from the GLC and metropolitan counties to the local authorities and statutory boards will be finished and done with? I do not believe that the business will be finished by then.
Is the right hon. Gentleman so certain that no slip-ups or delays will occur? I remind him of the famous words:
Those whom the gods wish to destroy.
They first make mad.
The Secretary of State and his junior Ministers are well on the way to self-destruction.

Mr. Franks: One essential matter goes to the heart of the legislation, but the Opposition either do not take it on board or, more to the point, they deliberately ignore it. In recent years we have experienced the virtual death of democracy in local government. The reason is simply that the ratepayer and the elector are no longer one and the same animal. The elector more often than not does not pay rates and the ratepayer is totally disfranchised. The Opposition would do well to realise that.
I back my comments with facts and figures from Manchester city council, with which I am fairly familiar and of which I was a member until last year. What happens in Manchester is no different from what happens in Sheffield, Tyne and Wear, Newcastle, Leeds or Birmingham. In Manchester, 67 per cent. of ratepayers come from business and commerce. They pay over two-thirds of the rates and yet do not have a single vote.

Mr. Straw: When the hon. Gentleman last spoke on this subject he condemned the Secretary of State by saying:
We would expect the Fascist Left, not the Government, to change political control of a council without an election." —[Official Report, 29 June 1984; Vol. 62, c. 1286.]
Does the hon. Gentleman still hold that view, or has he been put under pressure since then?

Mr. Franks: The hon. Gentleman has difficulty in comprehending many things, but if he can point out anything that I have said which contradicts what I have said this afternoon I shall give way to him. I am flattered and honoured that he had the sense to read carefully what has been said, even if he does not have the ability to comprehend it.
In Manchester, 67 per cent. of the ratepayers do not have a vote, but 33 per cent. of the ratepayers —the


domestic ratepayers—have 100 per cent. of the votes. One must analyse that 33 per cent. In Manchester 65 per cent. of domestic ratepayers receive rate rebates, so it is of no interest to them whether the rates go up 1 per cent., 10 per cent. or 1,000 per cent. Indeed, the pressure on the local authority is to spend more because that means something for nothing for the domestic ratepayers. That is the waste and arrogance of local government.
Many years ago this House, in its wisdom, decided to remove the business vote. The removal of that financial discipline led to the gradual decline and death of democracy in the cities. Those of us who have lived and worked in the cities——

Mr. Chris Smith: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Nicholas Brown: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Franks: I shall give way to one hon. Member, but they must decide which.

Mr. Brown: Is the hon. Gentleman saying that there should be two types of vote—an enhanced vote for the rich and a reduced vote for the poor?

Mr. Franks: I say that there should be a vote for everyone who pays rates. When I was in Manchester I resented the fact bitterly that I paid rates but had no vote. I provided jobs, but I had no vote. I provided employment, but I had no vote. Those who were the dross of society —[Interruption.]—who contributed nothing to, but took everything out of, society had a vote, whereas those who were putting something into society did not.

Mr. Boyes: What does the hon. Gentleman mean by the dross of society?

Mr. Franks: I stick with the word "dross". Opposition Members know to whom I am referring.

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: Will the hon. Gentleman be more explicit for the people of Barrow and Furness and explain what he means by the dross of society? Who are the people to whom he refers to as dross?

Mr. Franks: Labour Members are specialists in that sphere. I refer the hon. Gentleman to his colleagues.
If we analyse the situation and obtain a percentage of those in Manchester who pay rates and have an opportunity to do something about what happens, we find the ludicrous situation that only 16 per cent. of these ratepayers have a vote. Yet Labour Members talk about democracy. I throw the word "democracy" back at them. If they believe in democracy, give it to those who pay the rates.
The Labour party in London is organising so called by-elections to test the so-called electorate. When the ratepayers and the electorate coalesce and become one such by-elections will have some force. So long as London's ratepayers are deprived of a vote, such by-elections will remain a charade.

Mr. Frank Dobson: The hon. Member for Barrow and Furness (Mr. Franks) appears to believe that those who do not pay rates— because they are judged by his House to be too poor to pay rates—are dross.

Mr. Cecil Franks: Those were not my words.

Mr. Dobson: Those were the hon. Gentleman's words, and that was the impression he intended to create. He will have to explain away what he said to the poor people of Barrow whom he conned into voting for a buffoon like himself instead of a decent man like Albert Booth.
It is not so long ago since one had to be reasonably well off to have a vote in local government. That is the type of local government in which the Tories have always believed. They take the view that people with money should have more influence, even at the ballot box, than those without money. We reject that stinking, rotten poll tax idea on which the Tory party has always based its attitude.
Let us get a few things straight about who pays tax in this country. Rates are only one form of taxation. One of the main reasons why British businessmen object to the rating system is that rates are the only taxes that many of them pay. Under the Tories, the proportion of central Government revenue paid by big corporations and small businesses has fallen to 8·5 per cent. of companies' total revenue, so that ordinary people must put their hands in their pockets and handbags and pay the rest.
Nobody—not even Conservative Members, so far as I am aware—is suggesting, for example, that IT and T or any other multinational corporation should have a vote in British general elections. No doubt it will not be long before buffoons, such as the hon. Member for Barrow and Furness, are suggesting something of that sort.
8.15 pm
Anybody above the age determined by Parliament has the right to vote locally. It is a precious right which Labour Members will fight to preserve from all the lunacies that come from the Conservatives. Indeed, the remarks of the hon. Member for Barrow and Furness demonstrated the point that I had intended to make before he spoke—that the Secretary of State and his Government colleagues appears to base their whole local government legislation on two principles, both of which were enunciated by people outside Britain, one a Russian and the other an American.
The Russian was Molotov, who said that the problem with free elections was that one could not be sure who would win. The Government do not want an election in London and the metropolitan counties next year, not because they are not sure who would win, but because they are sure. They know that Labour would win, and therefore they do not want an election. That is the way of the autocrat, not the democrat.
When we consider the broad sweep of Tory local government measures, we see that they apply the principle enunciated by Henry Ford, the American. When asked what colours of cars manufactured by him people could purchase, replied they they could have a car of any colour so long as it was black. The Tories are saying that people can have councils of any colour, so long as they are blue. They are taking away the power of local authorities to do anything but pursue the policies of this purblind, stupid Tory Government. The people of Britain are resisting that, and we are proud to represent that resistance.
I shall concentrate on what is happening in inner London and not deal with outer London. It is clear that Conservative Members should do nothing to affect the ILEA. After all, they did not attend its schools or send their children to ILEA schools. The Conservatives have lost every election in inner London at borough, county and


parliamentary level. They have no mandate to put in jeopardy the schooling of 320,000 youngsters and many adults. We in inner London will not accept the measures that the Government are pushing through.
The ILEA is vilified at every turn by the Tories—and by the Government's poodle, The Standard, and many other newspapers—as are the people who are currently running the ILEA. They, and the education authority, are far from perfect, but if the Government do not like the spending and education policies of the ILEA, let them leave the law as it stands. There will then be an election next year and the people of inner London can decide, not some jumped-up bureaucrat who giggles in the Ministry Box all the way through the Minister's speech, nor the fools who have been representing the Government on their local government legislation in the House.
For those reasons, I join my hon. Friends in rejecting what was said by the hon. Member for Barrow and Furness and what the Government are putting forward. We will do away with the view that the Russian and the American propounded and, if necessary, stick with Winston Churchill and trust the people.

Mr. Alfred Dubs: The Bill is in a different form from the measure that left the House not many weeks ago, particularly in view of the amendment that we are now discussing. I shall concentrate on one issue to which, remarkably, the Secretary of State did not refer, although it was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson)—the ILEA.
The trouble with having such major changes to the Bill as it returns to us from another place is that we are not able to give the changes the scrutiny they should have, and in that respect I hope that the Secretary of State will answer some questions about the future of the ILEA.
I understand that it is intended that the present elected members of the authority shall hold office until 1 April 1986. However, the Government have conceded that the ILEA will in future continue to be a directly elected authority. On the other hand, Lord Whitelaw, in the other place, when answering another noble Lord, said:
I can give him a categorical assurance that … the main abolition Bill … will not preclude the holding of those elections in the Autumn of 1985 if that is the best course to follow". — [Official Report, House of Lords, 16 July 1984; Vol. 454, c. 1218.]
So we have the hint that the next elections for the Inner London education authority will take place in the autumn of 1985, it having been abolished in the spring of 1985 by the Bill and the amendment that we are discussing. The present ILEA will be in office for several months beyond that stage. I do not understand the logic of that. We shall have two elected authorities—it is to be hoped that they will be of the same political complexion— somewhat differently comprised in terms of individuals and structure. They will both hold office, and one will be shadowing the other. Surely that makes no sense.
The Secretary of State may say that we shall have to wait for the legislation that is to be introduced next Session before we know how that difficulty will be resolved, but that is not good enough. We are being called upon to make decisions now on the future of ILEA, although the effect of the amendment may be modified beyond recognition by legislation in the next Session. By any standards that is not playing fair by ILEA. It is adding enormous uncertainty to the way in which the most important and largest education authority in London is to be run. I remind the

House that ILEA commands more resources and is responsible for more expenditure than the GLC. We are not dealing with a minor local authority, but we are asked to take on trust proposals that we are not able fully to assess because they depend so much on legislation that is to follow. I resent the fact that proposals are being thrown at us in truncated form in the absence of any sign front the Secretary of State of the implications for ILEA of what is to follow. We are entitled to a better explanation than has been provided by the silence of Ministers.

Mr. Straw: This has been a fine debate, which has been notable for the brilliant speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Tyne Bridge (Mr. Cowans)—he made the wittiest speech that I have heard in my five years in this place as well as one of the sharpest—and the remarks of the hon. Member for Barrow and Furness (Mr. Franks). Unfortunately the debate has been characterised by the deafening silence of Conservative Members, broken only by the gales of laugher when my hon. Friend demolished the Secretary of State's arguments one by one and with them the Secretary of State himself.
I was not surprised that throughout the brilliant, witty and hilarious speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Tyne Bridge the Secretary of State could not share in one of the jokes. His face sunk deeper and deeper as he recognised, I hope, the error of what he is seeking to do. We know that the Thatcherite Tory party is a far from pleasant place. Government supporters now know that the Secretary of State is backing a loser. They know also that the Secretary of State is himself a loser and they are deserting him. So idefensible, unprincipled and bankrupt is the Government policy that it will, I warrant, be the Secretary of State's political obituary. The question now is not whether the Secretary of State will be fired but when.
We can share with the Secretary of State his anger at his treatment by 10 Downing street. Total loyalty is the price which he pays, as do all Cabinet Ministers, for his seat at the Cabinet table. That is an attitude which is far from reciprocated, for daily is the briefing about the Secretary of State's future. We were able to read this morning an article in the Financial Times by the ever well-informed Mr. Peter Riddell, the political editor. He tells us that
An additional Minister, possibly of Cabinet rank, is likely to be appointed this year at the Department of the Environment to deal with local authorities.
If ever the fingerprints of Mr. Bernard Ingham have appeared in a newspaper article, the following sentence must be a prime example. The article continues:
Mrs. Thatcher feels"—
in other words, Mr. Ingham has told Mr. Riddell—
that an excessive workload has fallen on Mr. Patrick Jenkin, the Environment Secretary.
I believe that to be true. No Minister should be forced to bear the work load that is carried by the Secretary of State, and I say that with every seriousness. This piece of finger-printed briefing adds:
Many observers at Westminster will see the proposed change as an attempt to make up for the continuing weaknesses of Mr. Jenkin in defending the local government legislation, although he is almost certain to remain as Environment Secretary for at least another year.
We can take it that he will not be remaining as Secretary of State for the Environment or Secretary of State for Northern Ireland for another two years. When that journal speaks of


the continuing weakness of the Secretary of State",
it must be said that it is weakness that has characterised the right hon. Gentleman's conduct of the Government's local authority policy. It is weakness that has produced obstinacy, stubborness, arrogance and a refusal to listen, still less to yield, to argument. The right hon. Gentleman has quoted from various newspapers in support of his draconian powers to take over the GLC even before the elected period of office of the GLC and the metropolitan councils has expired. His one source of evidence was the Daily Mail, that veritable organ of the truth!

Mr. Dobson: The forgers' gazette.

Mr. Straw: Yes, the forgers' gazette. I wonder why the Secretary of State did not quote his good friend and colleague, the Conservative GLC member for the constituency of Wanstead and Woodford, which the right hon. Gentleman represents in this place. He must know that GLC representative. He must face the same reselection procedures with the same constituency association as that faced by Mr. Robert Mitchell. I assume that at one stage the views of Mr. Mitchell and the Secretary of State were shared. What does Mr. Mitchell have to say about the Government's proposals? The relevant article is headed "The mandate that never was". Part of it states:
The defeats and retreats which have characterisd the progress of the Government's plans to abolish the Greater London Council and the Metropolitan councils may have caused the Government to modify its strategy, but they have had no effect on its ultimate goal.
Mr. Mitchell recites how badly the Government have done as a result of their local government policy. There was a 60 per cent. higher swing against the Government in London in the Euro-elections than in the country generally. Nowhere was there a higher swing against the Government than in London east, an area that is represented by the Secretary of State among others. We are deeply grateful to him for that if nothing else.
The article continues:
But manifesto promises are not binding contracts. Who now recalls the 1979 Conservative undertaking to abolish the domestic rating system?
We do, of course, and no one more than my hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham). It seems that no Conservative Members recall that undertaking. Mr. Mitchell's article states:
At a recent private meeting between a Government Minister
spot the Minister—
and a group of Conservative GLC councillors, the Minister expressed his appreciation of the value of the discussion and hoped that the consultation could continue. When it was suggested to him that the consultation could have been even more useful had it occurred before the manifesto was written, he registered pained surprise.
If there is one epithet of the Secretary of State's political obituary, it will be pained surprise at the reaction to his policies.
Mr. Mitchell concludes his excellent article by saying:
At present, when the Government is faced with an awkward function which does not fit the pattern, its response is to take it into its own grasp.
As a result, the control of London is slipping increasingly into the hands of special bodies and Government Departments and not moving nearer to the people. London

is a great and living entity and it is inconceivable that such a city should be left without a voice of its own. That is a sentiment to which all of us will drink.
Does any Conservative Member who supported the Government and the Prime Minister's call to roll back the frontiers of the state to set the people free really believe that the Government's proposals, which are not in any way setting the people free—the people do not want to be free in the way that the Secretary of State wishes, which means that they are bound hand, foot and finger— constitute the real freedom for which the Conservative party campaigned and from which it did well in 1950 and 1951? Does anyone believe that these proposals are remotely compatible with the pledges to set the people free and to roll back the frontiers of the state on which all Conservative right hon. and hon. Members were elected?
8.30 pm
As Mr. Mitchell said, it is with pained surprise that the Secretary of State reacts to the mounting opposition from not only the Opposition and Conservative Benches but the country as a whole. It is as if, having been caught with a smoking pistol in his hand, and having then voluntarily written a statement of confession in his own handwriting, the Secretary of State, as he goes to the gallows, still protests and believes in his innocence. It is time that the right hon. Gentleman understood that what he is doing is not just politically but morally wrong.
The Secretary of State is seeking to crush opposition. I never thought that I would hear, even in 1984, a Minister coming out with words that could have been plucked from George Orwell's "Nineteen Eight-four" and talking about the need to take powers that have never before been taken, in wartime or peacetime, to deal with opposition and with counter-obstruction to his proposals. I must tell the right hon. Gentleman that counter-obstruction is democratic opposition. Although the right hon. Gentleman may be a Tory, he should also— this is a tradition of the Tory party—be a democrat.

Mr. Stephen Ross: No, it is not.

Mr. Straw: Yes, it is. It may not be the tradition of the new Conservatives, but it is certainly the tradition of the old Tory party. There are one or two former adherents of the old Tory party who are ashamed to be members of a party which has thrown away its history of defending English liberties and which instead draws its inspiration and policies not from the history of the British people but from alien continental cultures, from the history of the pre-war states of Germany, Italy and Spain.
There are no precedents for what the Secretary of State is doing— no precedents for abolishing elections, for bringing forward such Bills before main Bills have gone foward and for a Secretary of State to take unto himself the power by edict to control every dot and comma of democratically elected authorities' work, just because those authorities, having been elected on a different mandate and having a majority of different councillors from a different party, dare on behalf of the people who elected them to go in for what the Secretary of State described as counter obstruction.
This is a despicable and undemocratic measure. It reflects a Secretary of State without principle and without scruple. The measure has our overwhelming opposition. However long it takes, we shall defeat this measure and the Secretary of State.

Mr. Waldegrave: This was a low-key debate until my hon. Friend the Member for Barrow and Furness (Mr. Franks) joined in. He hotted up the debate and produced a vintage rant from the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson). The hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) tried to hot up the debate again. The hon. Gentleman gets his history back to front. As a matter of fact, for much of the time the Tories did not believe in parliaments, but believed in kings. It was the Conservatives and people such as Peel who believe in parliaments. The hon. Gentleman should take another look at Norman Gash for information about those points.
We all know that the arguments were evenly balanced on how to deal with the transitional period. The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) brought up again all those leaks to The Guardian. There was argument then and there is argument now about the best way of getting through the transitional period. We have respected the wish of the other place and followed the advice of the hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark), who, in winding up an earlier debate, said that the obvious and sensible thing to do was to prolong the life of sitting councillors. There remains a case for that argument, and we have listened to the views of the other place. The attractive picture of thousands of peers conjured up by the hon. Member for Houghton and Washington (Mr. Boyes) was a bit of an exaggeration. There were not thousands of peers, but sufficient to make the Government change their mind on this point.
I genuinely admired the speech of the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey — not a filibuster — on Report on the Local Government (Interim Provisions) Bill. The hon. Gentleman's speech today was not quite so much on the ball. We heard a line familiar to those of us who fight Liberals — both sides of the argument were deployed at the same time. The argument was along the lines of, "It is all right to do away with bureaucracy, but only if one invents a bigger bureaucracy." I thought that the accuracy of his contribution was measured by the fact that he got both the name and the date of my book wrong. That is no good for sales. The hon. Gentleman must be more accurate.
The hon. Member for Houghton and Washington and several other hon. Members pointed out that there was no evidence that any of these councils would take any of the dire actions which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has taken powers to prevent. The trouble is that the hon. Member for Houghton and Washington overlooked the vigorous and characteristically unpleasant little speech from the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks), who said that the Labour movement would instruct people to frustrate the Government's plans. We do not need to read The Observer to know that. That statement was not in the Daily Mail. If hon. Members read Hansard they will find that the hon. Gentleman said that councillors would be instructed by the Labour movement to remain in office to frustrate the Government's plans. I wrote that down, because it was of some interest. We do not need to read the newspapers. We just have to listen to the Opposition Back Benchers.
There is one aspect about all this which is totally unprecedented. I know of no Government in modern times who have tackled the business of lifting a whole tier of bureaucracy from the backs of ratepayers and taxpayers. The whole process of modern government has been a steady expansion of bureaucracies and steady increases in

the number of people in large black cars giving themselves airs, and all the rest of it. It is ironic that the Labour party, which has many strong roots in the William Morris tradition of small government, always stands for the maintenance and increas of all bureaucratic powers in all circumstances. All the speeches of Opposition Members have been about the representations of an interest—that interest may be legitimate — and have been about nothing more than the protection of great organisations seeking to defend themselves.
I have no shame in standing before the House and saying that the Government believe in removing unnecessary government wherever we find it, and we believe that we have found it here. We have been challenged to say whether we will meet the target date of April 1986. I accept that, to some extent, the amendment adds to the pressures to meet that target date. I know that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and all of us in the Department of the Environment welcome that pressure, because we must have as short a period as possible of transition to the new, simpler and cheaper regime.
We have heard nothing new in this debate from the Opposition. We heard a little that was new from my hon. Friend the Member for Barrow and Furness. I believe that the House can with every confidence welcome the Lords amendment.

Question put, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment:—

The House divided: Ayes 312, Noes 167.

Division No. 453]
[8.39 pm


AYES


Adley, Robert
Bryan, Sir Paul


Aitken, Jonathan
Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon A.


Alexander, Richard
Budgen, Nick


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Bulmer, Esmond


Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Butcher, John


Amess, David
Butler, Hon Adam


Ancram, Michael
Butterfill, John


Ashby, David
Carlisle, John (N Luton)


Aspinwall, Jack
Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)


Atkins, Rt Hon Sir H.
Carttiss, Michael


Atkins, Robert (South Ribble)
Cash, William


Atkinson, David (B'm'th E)
Chalker, Mrs Lynda


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Vall'y)
Channon, Rt Hon Paul


Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)
Chapman, Sydney


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Chope, Christopher


Batiste, Spencer
Churchill, W. S.


Bendall, Vivian
Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)


Benyon, William
Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)


Berry, Sir Anthony
Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)


Best, Keith
Clegg, Sir Walter


Bevan, David Gilroy
Cockeram, Eric


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Colvin, Michael


Biggs-Davison, Sir John
Conway, Derek


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Cope, John


Body, Richard
Cranborne, Viscount


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Critchley, Julian


Bottomley, Peter
Crouch, David


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Currie, Mrs Edwina


Bowden, A. (Brighton K'to'n)
Dicks, Terry


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Dorrell, Stephen


Boyson, Dr Rhodes
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.


Braine, Sir Bernard
Dover, Den


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
du Cann, Rt Hon Edward


Bright, Graham
Durant, Tony


Brinton, Tim
Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)


Brittan, Rt Hon Leon
Eggar, Tim


Brooke, Hon Peter
Emery, Sir Peter


Brown, M. (Brigg &amp; Cl'thpes)
Eyre, Sir Reginald


Browne, John
Fallon, Michael


Bruinvels, Peter
Farr, Sir John






Favell, Anthony
Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)


Fenner, Mrs Peggy
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark


Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey
Lester, Jim


Fletcher, Alexander
Lewis, Sir Kenneth (Stamf'd)


Fookes, Miss Janet
Lightbown, David


Forman, Nigel
Lilley, Peter


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Lloyd, Ian (Havant)


Forth, Eric
Lloyd, Peter, (Fareham)


Fowler, Rt Hon Norman
Lord, Michael


Fox, Marcus
Luce, Richard


Franks, Cecil
Lyell, Nicholas


Fraser, Peter (Angus East)
McCrindle, Robert


Freeman, Roger
McCurley, Mrs Anna


Fry, Peter
MacGregor, John


Gale, Roger
MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire)


Gardiner, George (Reigate)
MacKay, John (Argyll &amp; Bute)


Gardner, Sir Edward (Fylde)
Maclean, David John


Glyn, Dr Alan
McQuarrie, Albert


Goodhart, Sir Philip
Madel, David


Gorst, John
Malins, Humfrey


Gower, Sir Raymond
Malone, Gerald


Grant, Sir Anthony
Maples, John


Gregory, Conal
Marland, Paul


Griffiths, E. (B'y St Edm'ds)
Marlow, Antony


Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)


Grist, Ian
Mates, Michael


Gummer, John Selwyn
Maude, Hon Francis


Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)
Mawhinney, Dr Brian


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Hampson, Dr Keith
Mayhew, Sir Patrick


Hanley, Jeremy
Mellor, David


Hannam, John
Merchant, Piers


Harris, David
Miller, Hal (B'grove)


Harvey, Robert
Mills, Iain (Meriden)


Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael
Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon)


Hawkins, C. (High Peak)
Miscampbell, Norman


Hawkins, Sir Paul (SW N'folk)
Mitchell, David (NW Hants)


Hawksley, Warren
Moate, Roger


Hayes, J.
Monro, Sir Hector


Hayhoe, Barney
Montgomery, Fergus


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Moore, John


Heddle, John
Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)


Henderson, Barry
Mudd, David


Hickmet, Richard
Murphy, Christopher


Hill, James
Neale, Gerrard


Hind, Kenneth
Needham, Richard


Hirst, Michael
Nelson, Anthony


Holland, Sir Philip (Gedling)
Neubert, Michael


Holt, Richard
Newton, Tony


Hooson, Tom
Nicholls, Patrick


Hordern, Peter
Normanton, Tom


Howard, Michael
Norris, Steven


Howarth, Alan (Stratf'd-on-A)
Onslow, Cranley


Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)
Oppenheim, Phillip


Howell, Ralph (N Norfolk)
Osborn, Sir John


Hubbard-Miles, Peter
Ottaway, Richard


Hunt, David (Wirral)
Page, Sir John (Harrow W)


Hunter, Andrew
Page, Richard (Herts SW)


Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas
Patten, John (Oxford)


Irving, Charles
Pattie, Geoffrey


Jackson, Robert
Pawsey, James


Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Jessel, Toby
Percival, Rt Hon Sir Ian


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Pollock, Alexander


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Porter, Barry


Jones, Robert (W Herts)
Powell, William (Corby)


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Powley, John


Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine
Price, Sir David


Kershaw, Sir Anthony
Proctor, K. Harvey


Key, Robert
Raffan, Keith


King, Roger (B'ham N'field)
Rees, Rt Hon Peter (Dover)


Knight, Gregory (Derby N)
Renton, Tim


Knight, Mrs Jill (Edgbaston)
Rhodes James, Robert


Lamont, Norman
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Lang, Ian
Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas


Latham, Michael
Ridsdale, Sir Julian


Lawler, Geoffrey
Rifkind, Malcolm


Lawrence, Ivan
Robinson, Mark (N'port W)


Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel
Roe, Mrs Marion


Lee, John (Pendle)
Rossi, Sir Hugh





Rost, Peter
Thompson, Donald (Calder V)


Rumbold, Mrs Angela
Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)


Ryder, Richard
Thorne, Neil (Ilford S)


Sackville, Hon Thomas
Thornton, Malcolm


Sainsbury, Hon Timothy
Thurnham, Peter


Sayeed, Jonathan
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)
Trippier, David


Shelton, William (Streatham)
Trotter, Neville


Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Twinn, Dr Ian


Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)
van Straubenzee, Sir W.


Shersby, Michael
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Silvester, Fred
Viggers, Peter


Sims, Roger
Waddington, David


Skeet, T. H. H.
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)
Waldegrave, Hon William


Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)
Walden, George


Speller, Tony
Waller, Gary


Spencer, Derek
Ward, John


Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)
Wardle, C. (Bexhill)


Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)
Warren, Kenneth


Squire, Robin
Watson, John


Stanbrook, Ivor
Watts, John


Steen, Anthony
Wells, Bowen (Hertford)


Stern, Michael
Wheeler, John


Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)
Whitfield, John


Stevens, Martin (Fulham)
Whitney, Raymond


Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)
Wiggin, Jerry


Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)
Wilkinson, John


Stewart, Ian (N Hertf'dshire)
Wolfson, Mark


Stokes, John
Wood, Timothy


Stradling Thomas, J.
Woodcock, Michael


Sumberg, David
Yeo, Tim


Tapsell, Peter
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Taylor, John (Solihull)
Younger, Rt Hon George


Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)



Temple-Morris, Peter
Tellers for the Ayes:


Thatcher, Rt Hon Mrs M.
Mr. Robert Boscawen and 


Thomas, Rt Hon Peter
Mr.Alastair Goodlad




NOES


Alton, David
Cox, Thomas (Tooting)


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Craigen, J. M.


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Cunliffe, Lawrence


Ashton, Joe
Cunningham, Dr John


Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)
Dalyell, Tam


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (L'lli)


Barnett, Guy
Davies, Ronald (Caerphilly)


Barron, Kevin
Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'ge H'l)


Beckett, Mrs Margaret
Deakins, Eric


Beith, A. J.
Dewar, Donald


Bell, Stuart
Dobson, Frank


Benn, Tony
Dormand, Jack


Bennett, A. (Dent'n &amp; Red'sh)
Douglas, Dick


Bermingham, Gerald
Dubs, Alfred


Bidwell, Sydney
Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.


Blair, Anthony
Eadie, Alex


Boyes, Roland
Eastham, Ken


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Edwards, Bob (W'h'mpt'n SE)


Brown, N. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne E)
Evans, John (St. Helens N)


Brown, R. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne N)
Fatchett, Derek


Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith)
Fisher, Mark


Bruce, Malcolm
Flannery, Martin


Buchan, Norman
Foot, Rt Hon Michael


Caborn, Richard
Foster, Derek


Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd &amp; M)
Foulkes, George


Campbell, Ian
Fraser, J. (Norwood)


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald


Canavan, Dennis
Garrett, W. E.


Carlile, Alexander (Montg'y)
George, Bruce


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John


Clarke, Thomas
Godman, Dr Norman


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Golding, John


Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S.)
Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)


Cohen, Harry
Hardy, Peter


Coleman, Donald
Harman, Ms Harriet


Conlan, Bernard
Harrison, Rt Hon Walter


Cook, Frank (Stockton North)
Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith


Corbett, Robin
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy


Corbyn, Jeremy
Healey, Rt Hon Denis


Cowans, Harry
Heffer, Eric S.






Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)
Penhaligon, David


Holland, Stuart (Vauxhall)
Pike, Peter


Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)
Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)


Hughes, Dr, Mark (Durham)
Prescott, John


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Redmond, M.


Hughes, Roy (Newport East)
Rees, Rt Hon M. (Leeds S)


Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)
Richardson, Ms Jo


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Roberts, Allan (Bootle)


Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)
Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)


Kennedy, Charles
Rogers, Allan


Kilroy-Silk, Robert
Rooker, J. W.


Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil
Ross, Ernest (Dundee W)


Lamond, James
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)


Leadbitter, Ted
Rowlands, Ted


Leighton, Ronald
Ryman, John


Lewis, Terence (Worsley)
Sheerman, Barry


Litherland, Robert
Sheldon, Rt Hon R.


Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Lofthouse, Geoffrey
Short, Ms Clare (Ladywood)


McCartney, Hugh
Silkin, Rt Hon J.


McDonald, Dr Oonagh
Skinner, Dennis


McGuire, Michael
Smith, C.(Isl'ton S &amp; F'bury)


McKay, Allen (Penistone)
Snape, Peter


Mackenzie, Rt Hon Gregor
Soley, Clive


Maclennan, Robert
Spearing, Nigel


McWilliam, John
Straw, Jack


Madden, Max
Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Thompson, J. (Wansbeck)


Maynard, Miss Joan
Thorne, Stan (Preston)


Meacher, Michael
Tinn, James


Michie, William
Torney, Tom


Mikardo, Ian
Wainwright, R.


Millan, Rt Hon Bruce
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)
Wareing, Robert


Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)
Weetch, Ken


Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Welsh, Michael


Nellist, David
White, James


Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon
Winnick, David


O'Brien, William
Woodall, Alec


Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Park, George



Parry, Robert
Tellers for the Noes:


Patchett, Terry
Mr. James Hamilton and Mr. Don Dixon


Pavitt, Laurie



Pendry, Tom

Question accordingly agreed to.

Lords amendments Nos. 3 and 4 agreed to.

Clause 5

SUPPLEMENTARY PROVISIONS

Lords amendment No. 5 agreed to.

Lords amendment: No. 6, in page 5, line 7, leave out
a council whose members are appointed under this Part of this Act

and insert
the Greater London Council or a metropolitan county council

Motion made, and Question put, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment — [Mr. Patrick Jenkin.]

The House divided: Ayes 307, Noes 164.

Division No. 454]
[8.51 pm


AYES


Adley, Robert
Atkinson, David (B'm'th E)


Alexander, Richard
Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Vall'y)


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)


Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Banks, Robert (Harrogate)


Amess, David
Batiste, Spencer


Ancram, Michael
Bendall, Vivian


Ashby, David
Berry, Sir Anthony


Aspinwall, Jack
Best, Keith


Atkins, Rt Hon Sir H.
Bevan, David Gilroy


Atkins, Robert (South Ribble)
Biffen, Rt Hon John





Biggs-Davison, Sir John
Gregory, Conal


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Griffiths, E. (B'y St Edm'ds)


Body, Richard
Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Grist, Ian


Bottomley, Peter
Gummer, John Selwyn


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)


Bowden, A. (Brighton K'to'n)
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Hampson, Dr Keith


Boyson, Dr Rhodes
Hanley, Jeremy


Braine, Sir Bernard
Hannam, John


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Harris, David


Bright, Graham
Harvey, Robert


Brinton, Tim
Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael


Brittan, Rt Hon Leon
Hawkins, C. (High Peak)


Brooke, Hon Peter
Hawkins, Sir Paul (SW N'folk)


Brown, M. (Brigg &amp; Cl'thpes)
Hawksley, Warren


Browne, John
Hayes, J.


Bruinvels, Peter
Hayhoe, Barney


Bryan, Sir Paul
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon A.
Heddle, John


Buck, Sir Antony
Henderson, Barry


Budgen, Nick
Hickmet, Richard


Bulmer, Esmond
Hill, James


Butcher, John
Hind, Kenneth


Butler, Hon Adam
Hirst, Michael


Butterfill, John
Holland, Sir Philip (Gedling)


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Holt, Richard


Carttiss, Michael
Hooson, Tom


Cash, William
Hordern, Peter


Chalker, Mrs Lynda
Howard, Michael


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Howarth, Alan (Stratf'd-on-A)


Chapman, Sydney
Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)


Chope, Christopher
Howell, Ralph (N Norfolk)


Churchill, W. S.
Hubbard-Miles, Peter


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Hunt, David (Wirral)


Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
Hunter, Andrew


Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)
Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas


Clegg, Sir Walter
Irving, Charles


Cockeram, Eric
Jackson, Robert


Colvin, Michael
Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick


Conway, Derek
Jessel, Toby


Cope, John
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Cranborne, Viscount
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Critchley, Julian
Jones, Robert (W Herts)


Crouch, David
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Dicks, Terry
Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith


Dorrell, Stephen
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.
Kershaw, Sir Anthony


Dover, Den
Key, Robert


du Cann, Rt Hon Edward
King, Roger (B'ham N'field)


Durant, Tony
Knight, Gregory (Derby N)


Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)
Knight, Mrs Jill (Edgbaston)


Eggar, Tim
Lamont, Norman


Emery, Sir Peter
Lang, Ian


Eyre, Sir Reginald
Latham, Michael


Fallon, Michael
Lawler, Geoffrey


Farr, Sir John
Lawrence, Ivan


Favell, Anthony
Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel


Fenner, Mrs Peggy
Lee, John (Pendle)


Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark


Fletcher, Alexander
Lester, Jim


Fookes, Miss Janet
Lewis, Sir Kenneth (Stamf'd)


Forman, Nigel
Lightbown, David


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Lilley, Peter


Forth, Eric
Lloyd, Ian (Havant)


Fowler, Rt Hon Norman
Lloyd, Peter, (Fareham)


Fox, Marcus
Lord, Michael


Franks, Cecil
Luce, Richard


Fraser, Peter (Angus East)
Lyell, Nicholas


Freeman, Roger
McCrindle, Robert


Fry, Peter
McCurley, Mrs Anna


Gale, Roger
MacGregor, John


Gardiner, George (Reigate)
MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire)


Gardner, Sir Edward (Fylde)
MacKay, John (Argyll &amp; Bute)


Glyn, Dr Alan
Maclean, David John


Goodhart, Sir Philip
McQuarrie, Albert


Gorst, John
Madel, David


Gower, Sir Raymond
Malins, Humfrey


Grant, Sir Anthony
Malone, Gerald


Greenway, Harry
Maples, John






Marland, Paul
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)


Marlow, Antony
Shersby, Michael


Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Silvester, Fred


Mates, Michael
Sims, Roger


Maude, Hon Francis
Skeet, T. H. H.


Mawhinney, Dr Brian
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)


Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Mayhew, Sir Patrick
Speller, Tony


Mellor, David
Spencer, Derek


Merchant, Piers
Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)


Miller, Hal (B'grove)
Squire, Robin


Mills, Iain (Meriden)
Stanbrook, Ivor


Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon)
Steen, Anthony


Miscampbell, Norman
Stern, Michael


Mitchell, David (NW Hants)
Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)


Moate, Roger
Stevens, Martin (Fulham)


Monro, Sir Hector
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


Montgomery, Fergus
Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)


Moore, John
Stewart, Ian (N Hertf'dshire)


Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)
Stokes, John


Mudd, David
Stradling Thomas, J.


Murphy, Christopher
Sumberg, David


Neale, Gerrard
Tapsell, Peter


Needham, Richard
Taylor, John (Solihull)


Nelson, Anthony
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Neubert, Michael
Temple-Morris, Peter


Newton, Tony
Thatcher, Rt Hon Mrs M.


Nicholls, Patrick
Thomas, Rt Hon Peter


Normanton, Tom
Thompson, Donald (Calder V)


Norris, Steven
Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)


Onslow, Cranley
Thorne, Neil (Ilford S)


Oppenheim, Phillip
Thornton, Malcolm


Osborn, Sir John
Thurnham, Peter


Ottaway, Richard
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Page, Sir John (Harrow W)
Trotter, Neville


Page, Richard (Herts SW)
Twinn, Dr Ian


Patten, John (Oxford)
van Straubenzee, Sir W.


Pawsey, James
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Viggers, Peter


Percival, Rt Hon Sir Ian
Waddington, David


Pollock, Alexander
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Porter, Barry
Waldegrave, Hon William


Powell, William (Corby)
Walden, George


Powley, John
Waller, Gary


Price, Sir David
Ward, John


Proctor, K. Harvey
Wardle, C. (Bexhill)


Raffan, Keith
Warren, Kenneth


Rees, Rt Hon Peter (Dover)
Watson, John


Ronton, Tim
Watts, John


Rhodes James, Robert
Wells, Bowen (Hertford)


Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Wheeler, John


Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas
Whitfield, John


Ridsdale, Sir Julian
Whitney, Raymond


Rifkind, Malcolm
Wiggin, Jerry


Robinson, Mark (N'port W)
Wilkinson, John


Roe, Mrs Marion
Wolfson, Mark


Rossi, Sir Hugh
Wood, Timothy


Rost, Peter
Woodcock, Michael


Rumbold, Mrs Angela
Yeo, Tim


Ryder, Richard
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Sackville, Hon Thomas
Younger, Rt Hon George


Sainsbury, Hon Timothy



Sayeed, Jonathan
Tellers for the Ayes:


Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)
Mr. Robert Boscawen and Mr. Alastair Goodlad


Shelton, William (Streatham)



Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)





NOES


Alton, David
Benn, Tony


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Bennett, A. (Dent'n &amp; Red'sh)


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Bermingham, Gerald


Ashton, Joe
Bidwell, Sydney


Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)
Blair, Anthony


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Boyes, Roland


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)


Barnett, Guy
Brown, N. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne E)


Barron, Kevin
Brown, R. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne N)


Beckett, Mrs Margaret
Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith)


Beith, A, J.
Bruce, Malcolm


Bell, Stuart
Buchan, Norman





Caborn, Richard
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd &amp; M)
Lofthouse, Geoffrey


Campbell, Ian
McCartney, Hugh


Campbell-Savours, Dale
McDonald, Dr Oonagh


Canavan, Dennis
McGuire, Michael


Carlile, Alexander (Montg'y)
McKay, Allen (Penistone)


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Mackenzie, Rt Hon Gregor


Clarke, Thomas
Maclennan, Robert


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
McWilliam, John


Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S.)
Madden, Max


Cohen, Harry
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Coleman, Donald
Maynard, Miss Joan


Conlan, Bernard
Michie, William


Cook, Frank (Stockton North)
Mikardo, Ian


Corbett, Robin
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce


Corbyn, Jeremy
Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)


Cowans, Harry
Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)


Cox, Thomas (Tooting)
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)


Craigen, J. M.
Nellist, David


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


Dalyell, Tam
O'Brien, William


Davies, Ronald (Caerphilly)
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'ge H'l)
Owen, Rt Hon Dr David


Deakins, Eric
Park, George


Dewar, Donald
Parry, Robert


Dobson, Frank
Patchett, Terry


Dormand, Jack
Pavitt, Laurie


Douglas, Dick
Pendry, Tom


Dubs, Alfred
Penhaligon, David


Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.
Pike, Peter


Eadie, Alex
Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)


Eastham, Ken
Prescott, John


Edwards, Bob (W'h'mpt'n SE)
Redmond, M.


Evans, John (St. Helens N)
Rees, Rt Hon M. (Leeds S)


Fatchett, Derek
Richardson, Ms Jo


Fisher, Mark
Roberts, Allan (Bootle)


Flannery, Martin
Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)


Foster, Derek
Rogers, Allan


Fraser, J. (Norwood)
Rooker, J. W.


Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald
Ross, Ernest (Dundee W)


Garrett, W. E.
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)


George, Bruce
Rowlands, Ted


Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
Ryman, John


Godman, Dr Norman
Sheldon, Rt Hon R.


Golding, John
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)
Short, Ms Clare (Ladywood)


Hardy, Peter
Silkin, Rt Hon J.


Harman, Ms Harriet
Skinner, Dennis


Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
Smith, C.(Isl'ton S &amp; F'bury)


Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith
Snape, Peter


Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Soley, Clive


Healey, Rt Hon Denis
Spearing, Nigel


Heffer, Eric S.
Straw, Jack


Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)
Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)


Holland, Stuart (Vauxhall)
Thompson, J. (Wansbeck)


Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)
Thorne, Stan (Preston)


Hughes, Dr. Mark (Durham)
Tinn, James


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Torney, Tom


Hughes, Roy (Newport East)
Wainwright, R.


Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Wareing, Robert


Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)
Weetch, Ken


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Welsh, Michael


Kennedy, Charles
White, James


Kilroy-Silk, Robert
Winnick, David


Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil
Woodall, Alec


Lamond, James
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Leadbitter, Ted



Leighton, Ronald
Tellers for the Noes:


Lewis, Terence (Worsley)
Mr. James Hamilton and Mr. Don Dixon


Litherland, Robert

Question accordingly agreed to.

Lords amendment No. 7 agreed to.

zlause 8

POSTPONEMENT OF EXERCISE OF FUNCTIONS

Lords amendment: No. 8, in page 7, line 18, leave out subsection (2).

9 pm

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Sir George Young): I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
I hope that the debate will be short and uncontroversial, as the Government have responded to arguments put forward on the subject.
The amendment deletes subsection (2). When drafting the Bill it seemed to the Government that there would be little point in reviewing the arrangements for authorities which were shortly to be abolished and that it would be sensible to avoid abortive work being undertaken by the Local Government Boundary Commission. This is why subsection (2) was included in the Bill introduced in the House.
We have, however, reflected on the matter in the light of debate in both Houses. One consideration in particular has weighed heavily with us. If abolition did not go ahead, it would be necessary to reinstate the 1985 elections as quickly as possible. However, if the Local Government Boundary Commission were to be stopped from continuing its present programme of reviews, an unsatisfactory situation could arise. The reviews could not be reactivated and completed in time for the reinstated elections to be held on the new electoral arrangements. I promised in Committee in this House to consider the matter further. We have done so, and we have concluded that it would indeed be right to allow the Local Government Boundary Commission to continue with its programme of reviews in the metropolitan areas.

Mr. Beith: To put it mildly, the amendment has an interesting history. It began with what we regard as the obnoxious provisions of the original Bill. The Government were placed in the position which they had often criticised in previous years when it was occupied by the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Callaghan). They were standing in the way of the Boundary Commission and saying that it could not do its job. The Government thought that they could presume upon the passing of the abolition legislation, and in so doing they took yet another monstrously unconstitutional decision. However, in this case they have stepped back from that decision, and I readily welcome it. There are cogent reasons, to which the Minister referred, why that should happen.

Mr. Robert Adley: What the hon. Gentleman has just said is not accurate. The right hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Callaghan) did not prevent the Boundary Commission from doing its work, but gerrymandered the position in the House and organised his own side to vote against the Boundary Commission's recommendations.

Mr. Beith: The hon. Gentleman is right. I was pressing my argument more than serves the purpose of accuracy, to which the hon. Gentleman has helpfully contributed.
I was referring to why it would be wrong not to pass the amendment. Were the Boundary Commission to be

told to leave off London and the metropolitan counties, but the Government lost the abolition Bill, the essential building blocks for boundary change could not be assembled and brought into effect. We must remind ourselves again and again during these discussions that the House has not yet had the abolition Bill, or its detailed proposals, before it. Its decision on that matter must not be presumed upon any more than the views of the other place on the principles of this Bill. Perhaps at least on this amendment the Government have begun to realise how foolish it is to presume upon what views the legislative Chambers will take on major constitutional issues such as this.
The Boundary Commission will be in difficulty because it does not know, and we do not know, what will be the real shape of government in the metropolitan counties and Greater London. We are still relying on comments by Ministers in earlier papers that they produced. We are relying on the statement that they are said to be making tomorrow. There are many loose ends. It is not yet apparent to me and others whether the boundaries of the metropolitan counties and Greater London will continue to exist for a variety of other public purposes. We are wondering whether there will still be significant local government and governmental boundaries or whether they will simply pass out of existence.
I take a seemingly trivial example of where administrative confusion will be caused if the problem is not resolved. It is not yet apparent whether there will be a Lord Lieutenant of the counties that the Government are proposing to abolish. Will there be a Lord Lieutenant of Tyne and Wear or some of the other metropolitan counties once the abolition Bill is passed? All that relates closely to the issue of the boundaries. The neighbouring authorities are beginning to set their caps in the direction of the Boundary Commission, as they did in the old days of the local government boundary Commissions, as they contemplate whether the metropolitan counties will be subsumed in their areas. It is not clear to those involved, let alone the public, whether Tyne and Wear will become part of Northumberland and Durham for any purpose. Many areas of confusion relating to boundaries will arise. The one that will bear most upon the Boundary Commission is confusion about what the future shape of government will be. If the Government lost the abolition Bill, it could not be presumed that that was the end of the matter. They would have to draw up some alternative proposals.
What is most memorable about the amendment is the white handkerchief. It will go down in history as the day when the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Ealing, Acton (Sir G. Young), drew from his pocket one of the grubbiest white handkerchiefs that I have seen for a long time and waved it in the direction of the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn), who was speaking at the time. That was to show that on this issue. if on nothing else, the Government had caved in. The Government were showing their willingness to think again about the proposal to take away the Boundary Commission's duties in respect of Greater London. But more than the Government's white handkerchief was waved at that point, because it was also the signal for the Labour party to decide that the Bill was not as bad as it thought, and perhaps we could all go home. That is all past history, but it adds a certain poignancy to the amendment, which the Liberal party welcomes.

Mr. Straw: As I said at about 3.43 am on 22 May:
This is the first occasion on this Bill and the associated Rates Bill that the Government have accepted the force of the arguments advanced on a substantial issue."—[Official Report, 22 May 1984; Vol. 60, c. 992.]
Substantial arguments were advanced on this issue, in notable speeches from my hon. Friend the Member for St. Helens, South (Mr. Bermingham) and from the Liberal Chief Whip, the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith). Whether my speeches on that occasion were notable is for others to judge.
We are glad that, because of the force of the arguments and other circumstances, the Government have decided to


5
". — (1) Except with the consent of the Secretary of State neither the Greater London Council nor a metropolitan county council shall on or after 1st April 1985 incur any expenditure under section 137 of the principal Act (power to incur expenditure for purposes not otherwise authorised).


10
(2) The expenditure to which subsection (1) applies includes ((expenditure after the date mentioned in that subsection in respect of contractual liabilities entered into before that date but not earlier than 26th June 1984.


15
(3) The Secretary of State shall not give his consent under this section in respect of any expenditure unless he is satisfied that it is expedient for the council in question to incur it and, as respe6ts expenditure under subsection (1) of the said section 137, that the expenditure is in the interests of the council's area or any part of it or of all or some of its inhabitants.


20
(4) Any consent under this section may be given either in respect of particular expenditure or in respect of expenditure of any class or description and either unconditionally or subject to conditions.



(5) Expenditure incurred in contravention of this section shall be treated as contrary to law for the purposes of section 19 of the Local Government Finance Act 1982 (powers of court in respect of unlawful expenditure by local authorities) but, save as aforesaid,


25
this section shall not invalidate any payment, contract or other transaction."

Read a Second time.

Mr. Allan Roberts: I beg to move, as an amendment to the Lords amendment, amendment (a) in line 20, at end insert—
'(4A) The consent of the Secretary of State under this section shall not be required to the incurring of expenditure where the recipient person or body is, for all or part of any one financial year, in receipt concurrently of funding from monies voted by Parliament including Urban Programme, the grant-in-aid to the Manpower Services Commission or funds administered by the Department of Industry, or in receipt concurrently of funding from the European Social Fund or Regional Fund, or in receipt concurrently of funds provided by any registered charity.'

Mr. Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take the following amendments to the proposed Lords amendment:
(e) in line 6, at end insert—
'(1A) Consent should not be unreasonably withheld, and shall in any event be extended to the incurring of expenditure where the recipient person or body is for all or part of any one financial year in receipt concurrently of funding from monies voted by Parliament including Urban Programme, the grant-in-aid to the Manpower Services Commission, or funds administered by the Department of Industry, or in receipt concurrently of funding from the European Social Fund or Regional Fund or in receipt concurrently of funds provided by any registered charity.'.
(g) in line 16, at end insert—
'(3A) The Secretary of State shall publish his specific reasons for referring his consent in respect of any expenditure from which his consent is withheld.'.
(b) in line 20, at end, insert—

accept the strength of our case and the Boundaries Commission is to continue its work. This is one of the few Lords amendments which we shall not oppose.

Question put and agreed to.

New Clause

CONTROL OF GENERAL EXPENDITURE POWERS

Lords amendment: No. 9, after clause 8, insert the following clause—
'(4B) Before exercising his power under this section to grant or refuse consent, the Secretary of State shall specify the matters he is to take into consideration in granting or refusing his consent.'.

(c) in line 20, at end, insert—
'(4C) The consent of the Secretary of State under this section shall not be required for any expenditure incurred under the said section 137 for a purpose in connection with the promotion of the industrial, commercial or economic development of its area or part thereof.'.

(h) in line 20, at end insert—
'(4E) No consent shall be required under this section in respect of expenditure incurred under section 137 of the principal Act by way of a payment to any body or organisation where

(a) such body or organisation has been in receipt of a payment under the said section 137 by the local authority concerned within the two previous financial years, and
(b) the payment to be made to such body or organisation does not exceed the total amount so made in the previous two financial years.'.

(i) in line 26, at end add—
'(5A) The Secretary of State shall notify the relevant Council of his decision in respect of any expenditure within one month of that expenditure being submitted for his approval.'.

Mr. Roberts: Lords amendment No. 9 is an act of revenge by the Government against the GLC and the metropolitan county councils, because they wanted to persuade their supporters in the other place to vote with them in their attempts to terminate the council before they had an Act of Parliament to do so. I shall present each amendment in turn, and then I shall illustrate why the Lords amendment is unnecessary and a back-door attempt by the Government to subvert local democracy in London


and the metropolitan county councils, and to try to subvert the wishes of the other place to provide for the continuation of the MCCs and the GLC until a Bill is passed to abolish them. This amendment, along with most of the others that we are considering today, are acts of political spite based on fallacious arguments and Government prejudice.
The Lords amendment will destroy local government powers to spend moneys under section 137 of the Local Government Act 1972. That was the successor of what we in local government used to refer to as the penny rate. Local government has always held dear the freedom and right to spend outside the ultra wires that they have always enjoyed.
Amendment (a) to the Lords amendment says:
The consent of the Secretary of State under this section shall not be required to the incurring of expenditure where the recipient person or body is, for all or part of any one financial year, in receipt concurrently of funding from monies voted by Parliament including Urban Programme, the grant-in-aid to the Manpower Services Commission or funds administered by the Department of Industry, or in receipt concurrently of funding from the European Social Fund or Regional Fund, or in receipt concurrently of funds provided by any registered charity
The basic principles behind the amendment are simple. Section 137 powers have been used extensively by local authorities to supplement and to give local direction to funding initiatives by other bodies. The principal agencies are frequently those of the Government, including the MSC, support for training schemes, urban programme funding, voluntary organisations and job creation schemes. The Government are proposing to superimpose a layer of monitoring on the work of these other agencies as well as on the local authorities concerned. The effect will both duplicate the specialist judgments already made by responsible and expert agencies and in some cases jeopardise their work by threatening delays and uncertainties. The amendment gives the Government an opportunity in advance to exclude several categories of funding. It seems logical that the Government should accept the amendment if they want to prove that the charge of political spite does not hold water. Surely there is no reason why the Government should exempt those grants that are going to bodies which the Government and Government-supported schemes are already funding as there can be no accusations of political bias, asset stripping or anything else.
9.15 pm
Amendment (b) requires that
Before exercising his power under this section to grant or refuse consent, the Secretary of State shall specify the matters he is to take into consideration in granting or refusing his consent.
Lords' amendment No. 9 gives the Secretary of State, other Ministers and civil servants at the Department of the Environment the kind of draconian powers that we and many others have been objecting to to scrutinise every grant under section 137 that the metropolitan counties and the GLC wish to make. Surely the Secretary of State should specify the matters that he is to take into consideration in granting or refusing his consent. The right hon. Gentleman is not famous for giving help and for providing information on issues relating to this paving legislation to explain democratically to the House, the local authorities and indeed the British people, the criteria on which he is acting and on which he will take powers under the legislation. The publication of such criteria

would benefit the local authorities in determining whether to submit projects to the Secretary of State — an important matter which we shall be discussing later.
The Secretary of State's powers to penalise legally councillors who give consent or spend money without his consent are draconian. Councils and councillors may be disqualified if they give a grant without the Secretary of State's permission when they should have sought it. They could lose their right to be elected members, and so on. Surley the Secretary of State should explain the grounds and criteria on which he will operate the new powers that he is seeking. Again, if the Secretary of State wants to redeem some of his reputation and appear to be reasonable, he will accept the amendment.
Amendment (c) requires that
The consent of the Secretary of State under this section shall not be required for any expenditure incurred under the said section 137 for a purpose in connection with the promotion of the industrial, commercial or economic developments of its area or any part thereof.
The Government pay lip-service, especially in areas such as Merseyside and inner London, encouraging commercial and economic development. Most of the metropolitan counties and the GLC use large amounts of their money, if not most of their money, for that purpose.
The Government have said that there is concern that the funding of enterprise boards may be a possible opportunity for asset-stripping. Again, no evidence has been produced by the Government or the Secretary of State for that outrageous accusation of bad faith on the part of elected councillors in areas such as Merseyside, London and elsewhere in the metropolitan counties. Disposals of land and property are severely circumscribed already by section 123 of the Local Government Act 1972. Any disposal below market price already requires the consent of the Secretary of State. Funding of economic development is now the major use of section 137 powers, and the clause threatens activities which could cost literally thousands of jobs.
Of £22 million spent under section 137 by the six metropolitan counties in 1983–84, £19 million was devoted to employment initiatives. Lord Bellwin has conceded in the other place that enterprise boards do useful works. He went on to say:
We accept that enterprise beards can help to forge a vital partnership between the public and private sectors."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 16 July 1984; Vol. 454, c. 1283.]
If that is the Government's view, it is surely incumbent on them to explain why they now propose to introduce a serious break on economic development initiatives in the absence of any evidence to justify it. The metropolitan areas, including the major industrial regions of Britain, are where any long-term economic regeneration must begin. All the authorities facing abolition now have extensive programmes for aiding economic development or assisting decline.
In metropolitan areas, activities under section 137 include the offering of small grants or loans to start or establish small firms and co-operatives. Why does the Secretary of State have to scrutinise and approve them? It includes business advice courses, support for training courses to eliminate skill shortages, job incentive schemes to ease the list of recruitment and training, financial assistance to technical colleges and product development. Many of those activities are funded concurrently with the EEC or Government agencies. If the Government accept Lords amendment No. 9, all of those worthwhile ventures


which relate to economic development and job creation will be excluded without there being any effect on what the Secretary of State regards as political grants.
In Merseyside, the economic development committee which, until recently, was chaired by my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Wareing), has developed schemes to provide incentives for small businesses to create jobs for the under-25s or long-term unemployed adults. Merseyside has assisted with the costs incurred by firms that retrain employees because they have introduced new technology plant and machinery. The economic development office —MERCEDO—has staff who are able to advise small firms and individuals who wish to start a business. They also help the work force when large firms are about to embark on rationalisation and when major redundancies are expected. They give information about industrial sites and buildings. I could continue to list their efforts through investing in local companies, saving jobs and creating jobs. If he is being rational, surely the Secretary of State would exempt such activity from these draconian powers.
Recently, the committees of Merseyside county council examined expenditure under section 137, which is limited by law to the product of a 2p rate. It will be £4·86 million for the Merseyside county council. The council has recently examined proposals to make a grant of £44,000 for a scheme to fight drug abuse. Does the Secretary of State oppose such expenditure? The number of heroin addicts is growing in Merseyside — the unemployed youth of the area are easy prey to the pushers because they see no hope for the future. The council is trying to do something about the problem but the Government will curtail its activities. The council has also decided to provide extra support for Merseyside Improvements Ltd. —a company that assists small businesses and improves derelict land and buildings.
The council provides £47,000 towards the cost of offshore safety and survival courses which are necessary for people who work on the rigs. Many unemployed people in Merseyside benefit from such training. Another £15,000 goes towards the kids in need and distress scheme. There are also support schemes for the victims of crime. What is politically objectionable about them? Of course, the Secretary of State will mention the assistance that is given to miners and their families in St. Helens. Indeed, he has already thrown that example at my hon. Friend the Member for West Derby. However, it is just one political grant out of many grants that are provided by Merseyside county council. The Secretary of State will justify this panopoly of controls to restict local authorities because of that decision to provide assistance under section 137. I support and do not apologise for that grant or the so-called politically controversial grants that councils give. The GLC is most often quoted in that connection. I believe that local authorities have a role to set precedents and to lead as well as to follow.
The Greater London Council and the Labour-controlled metropolitan authorities have given grants to so-called controversial and political bodies. Local government has always been free to pioneer and lead the way. It was the first to produce gas and electricity, to set up police forces and to launch major slum clearance programmes. Local authorities started the clean air programme by promoting private Bills against the wishes of the Government at that

time. Local authorities' pioneering activities today take place under section 137, because their powers elsewhere have been restricted and limited. Those pioneering activities, which suppport ethnic minorities and other groups and movements in the community, are benefiting and changing society. Those are the things to which the Government and reactionaries object. I make no apologies for controversial grants.
The GLC revenue budget for all direct grant aid to voluntary organisations and industry is £47 million for 1984–85. That is equivalent to less than 3 per cent. of the total gross revenue budget. The cost of the programme to the average domestic ratepayer in London is 13p a week. Many groups benefit from GLC grants, for example, the Greater London Association for the Disabled, the Royal Society for Mentally Handicapped Children and Adults, the Spastics Society, hostels for the single homeless, Age Concern, Pensioners Link, the National Council for One Parent Families, day nurseries, creches, pre-school playgroups, community centres, Cancerlink, and the Association to Aid the Victims of Medical Accidents. Why does the Secretary of State need power to control those groups? It is because of the few controversial groups that receive grants, which the Aims of Industry publication criticises. It is as misleading as the Secretary of State's earlier statement.
The GLC has not spent £30 million on grants to 51 organisations. The real total is £796,000, or 1·73 per cent. of the total grant budget. The report is highly selective, as the Secretary of State has been, and no doubt will be again when he replies to the debate. The GLC aids approximately 2,400 groups, some of which I have already mentioned.
I turn to the organisations which the Government, and their supporters and Aims of Industry have picked out. The GLC gave a grant to the English Collective of Prostitutes for a research project to find out why women go into prostitution, and what barriers there are to leaving it if they wish to. Is the Secretary of State against that? Aims of Industry is against it. Is that grant to stop? What about the Southall Black Sisters, now the Southall Women's Centre? It is a community centre for Asians and Afro-Caribbean women. The Aims of Industry group lists it as odd. In common with many other GLC-funded centres, it acts as a meeting place for women, offers counselling and advice on health care, motherhood and child care, and has nursery facilities. Sisters Concern provides mobile child care facilities to Afro-Caribbean children and their parents. The GLC funds many ethnic minority groups which are listed by Aims of Industry, such as, Lesbian Line, Gay Switchboard, the London Lesbian and Gay Centre, the London Gay Teenage Group and the Gay London Police Monitoring Group.
The Government and their supporters seek to justify the abolition of the GLC and the MCCs, to attack Labour-controlled authorities and to justify these draconian powers by searching the gutter. They are scratching the surface of racialism, ruthlessly exploiting sexism and prejudice against gays and lesbians and are appealing to the worst elements and prejudices in society in a manner worthy of the worst sort of Right-wing extremists, which they are doing their best to prove they are.
We should not apologise for our controversial grants. They are pioneering grants and they help people in the greatest need. They help to create a better, more just, and


equal society. If central Government will not do that, it will continue to be the role of local government, as it has traditionally been.
9.30 pm
Did the Tory-controlled GLC give grants? I asked for information about that. Some may complain about a grant to an organisation called Babies against the Bomb—I admit that the name conjures up all sorts of interesting jokes—but that group was formed by several women committed to the idea of peace through nuclear disarmament. The Government may not agree with nuclear disarmament, but vast numbers of people voted for it when they elected the present GLC. What is the difference between a Left-wing GLC supporting that group, which Aims to involve women who are shy about attending large rallies and formal meetings—they chose the name because of concern for their children's future — and a Right-wing GLC supporting the Territorial Army and all the recruiting campaigns organised in London by the armed forces? Some people who are in favour of nuclear disarmament might not favour the recruiting of the young unemployed into the armed forces. It is a political decision, whether my hon. Friends like it or not, that can be decided at the local ballot box.
I asked the GLC to supply information about grants made by the previous Tory Administration, and I consulted all the relevant GLC officers. However, records were not kept under the previous Administration until the problem with the "Fares Fair" policy. There was never a question about the GLC being able to make grants. Apparently, most of the Conservative group's grants were made to organisations for housing homeless persons and to some traditional arts bodies. I may not object to that, but what were those arts bodies and what sort of political plays did they produce? It is impossible to determine, since records were not kept.
This legislation, which proposes complete control by the Secretary of State of section 137 grants, is unworkable, impractical and is so draconian and complicated that the Secretary of State will never get out of the administrative quagmire that he is creating unless he accepts our amendments or refuses to put this clause to the House. If he accepts our amendments, a way through the quagmire will be possible, because he will exclude those grants which he does not find objectionable, although I would not always agree with his list of objectionable grants.
The Government are being totalitarian. If the Labour party were introducing such measures, it would be accused of behaving like an East European Communist state. But the Government are erecting the Berlin wall between the electors and the ballot box, their councils and services. The Government have interfered with democratic rights and freedoms. They will not get away with it, not only in the GLC area, but in the metropolitan counties. There will be by-elections. At a meeting last Friday, all the metropolitan county chief executives and other leaders agreed that there should be a testing of public opinion in April or May next year so that the people are given the opportunity to say yes or no to abolition. It will be left to each authority to decide whether to call random by-elections or whether their entire Labour groups should resign.
The Government will not escape from elections. Whether they fight them or not, the public will turn out to vote against the draconian powers being taken by the

Government and against the sort of interference that is proposed in the clause, which removes the traditional rights of local government.

Mr. Richard Wainwright: I speak in support of the amendment to which the spokesman for the Labour segment of the Opposition the hon. Member for Bootle (Mr. Roberts), has just spoken, but I should also like to speak to four of the amendments which are grouped for debate at this stage, tabled by my right hon. and hon. Friends in the Liberal and Social Democratic parties— amendments (e), (g), (h), and (i). The purpose of those amendments is to try to preserve, as far as possible within the framework of a deplorable Bill, that very important element in local government legislation, the free 2p. In the Liberal view, held and published to the world since the 1950s, the free 2p itself is only a very minimal expression of the importance of freedom of local government.
The Liberal party has always subscribed — even before Lord Redcliffe-Maud commended it — to the principle that ultra vires should be banished from our local government law, and that local government should have competence to spend money as it thinks best, subject, of course, to the overriding verdict of the electorate when it reviews how the money is being spent.
It is worth detaining the House for a moment to refer to the paragraph in the Redcliffe-Maud report which gave his immense authority to a view which Liberals had been propounding for 10 years before he published it. The report, in paragraph 323, states:
All main authorities should have a general power to spend money for the benefit of their areas and inhabitants. This is additional to their expenditure on services for which they have statutory responsibility … But expenditure
—under the local Government (Financial Provisions) Act 1963—
is limited to the product of a penny rate. We suggest that the only limit on the use of the new power should be the wishes of the electors and such restrictions as have to be placed on local government expenditure in the interests of national economic and financial policy.
We very much regret the savage assault on the Redcliffe-Maud doctrine which was furtively introduced into the Bill by means of a new clause in another place as late as 3 July. The free 2p has been responsible for many of the greatest innovations in local government in Britain.
Although members of the Liberal party on the West Yorkshire county council have been critical in detail of some of the ways in which the West Yorkshire enterprise board has been working, they regard it as a very valuable addition to the range of local and provincial powers.
In my constituency, employees have reason to be very grateful for the imaginative but properly careful way in which the West Yorkshire enterprise board, established by the county council, has been operating. It has been supplementing—in a spirit which I should have thought the Prime Minister would warmly endorse—the working capital of family businesses which offer a reasonable livelihood and good employment to people in the locality. It enjoys a high reputation in business and professional circles — even those which are, on the whole, of a deeply blue colour in west Yorkshire. Attempts to restrict further subventions to the west Yorkshire enterprise board will be greatly resented by some members of the Conservative party in that part of the country.
I come now to a part of the clause, adopted in another place, which we seek to amend and which is peculiarly offensive to Liberals. It is the part which gives the


Secretary of State power to discriminate between voluntary organisations which he thinks are valuable and worthy, and voluntary organisations which he will sweep aside. It is intolerable for a Secretary of State to be given those powers. If we reach a stage where local government is allowed only to subsidise cricket, dominoes and the church tower, we shall be a very poverty-stricken country spiritually and otherwise.
There are innumerable causes which are well supported by particular groups, all of them British citizens and taxpayers, which are entitled to have their cases for help heard in their locality, not in some Whitehall sanctum by someone conditioned, as we all are, by a particular upbringing, education and slant on life—not to mention a particular ministerial occupation.
I shall be brief in dealing with the implicit thought in the new clause, which we seek to amend, there is a threat of appalling irresponsibility inherent in the bodies so that during 1985–86 they may be possessed of a demoniac spirit that will cause them to lavish expenditure in an uncontrolled manner. There is no evidence for that. I recall a recent parallel.
Hon. Members may recall the splendid window of opportunity opened when that otherwise very perverse measure, the Local Government Act 1972, was enacted. For all its faults, it enabled a great many well-managed urban district councils to say, "At last, we will use our balances to give something of real importance to the locality that we are trying to serve." My constituency—and I hope other constituencies — is the richer today because of the capital expenditure that was wisely and prudently made in the closing year of the urban district councils' office. There are many industrial and leisure projects made then, without which the unemployed today would be immensely deprived — not to mention the children and the aged. They flowed from the period of opportunity when the councils could allow certain capital projects to go forward which had previously been held back by excessive caution and inhibition.
The free 2p is not a doctrine to be attacked in such a furtive and unimaginative manner in response to Whitehall fears. It is the only substantial exception in our local government law to the centralising weapon of Whitehall bureaucracy repressing regional independence. Our amendments are an attack on this shamefaced and backdoor method of repressing the independence of the great provinces of England.
Sadly, the perverse measure of 1972 did its best to destroy the great provinces of England by breaking them into absurd county units, such as Cleveland, Humberside and other ridiculous units of local government. But is it an important fact that the proud independence of those regions and provinces has survived even that perverse attack. The spirit of the great provinces of the Midlands, Lancashire, Yorkshire, Northumberland and Durham has been substantially distilled into the metropolitan county councils. Certainly, in Yorkshire, the spirit of the West Riding, so violated by the 1972 measure, has—in a way that I would not have been brave enough to predict at that time — been distilled into the West Yorkshire metropolitan county council, still operating from County hall in Wakefield. To treat that body as unfit to be

responsible to administer a free 2p rate shows how fearful the Government are of any sign of regional and provincial independence.
Our amendments are intended to provide some outer boundary, beyond which some mad council should not be allowed to go—although we think that the precautions will be unnecessary. It is important to note that the clause was introduced in another place. It was not part of the Bill presented to the House for Second Reading; it was not even within the long title of the Bill. I hope that the Secretary of State will explain why this attack on an important element of local government finance was introduced at such a late stage in another place.
9.45 pm
Worthwhile voluntary organisations, if they do not commend themselves to the Secretary of State's Solomon judgment, may suffer enormously by this attack on the free 2p. Local enterprise might have its plans disrupted and damaged by this narrow conscribing of councils' powers to exercise judgment over the spending of the free 2p. The spirit of local independence, which has suffered blows from this and previous Conservative Governments, might take a further battering. I ask the Secretary of State to consider the repercussions even for the Conservative party of this attack on provincial independence and on the value of people who give their service voluntarily in local government.

Mr. Alfred Morris: All of us in the House today are subjected to conflicting pressures. Within the House we are enjoined to make the briefest of speeches in this important series of debates. By contrast, our constituents want us to speak for as long as it takes to expose what, almost by common consent now, is regarded as a shoddy and shabby Bill.
I shall speak briefly, not because I believe constraining section 137 controls to be deserving of only summary debate, but out of regard for other right hon. and hon. Members who wish to intervene. There are many of them and I need not, therefore, address myself to the whole of the case for opposing this deeply objectionable new clause.
In 1978, those who then controlled the Greater Manchester county council introduced a scheme for providing bursaries to enable children in the county to obtain an independent school education. The Judicial Committee of the House of Lords upheld the powers of the Greater Manchester council to incur expenditure under section 137 for that highly controversial purpose.
Thus section 137 now undoubtedly permits a local authority to incur expenditure for a controversial purpose and the effect of the new clause, in the case of the GLC and the metropolitan county councils, is to prevent the use of section 137 for such a purpose unless the Secretary of State's consent can be obtained. That is an outright denial of the discretion conferred upon local authorities generally by Parliament in 1972.
The new clause may, indeed, be so interpreted in practice by the Secretary of State as to amount to a virtual repeal of section 137 so far as the GLC and the metropolitan county councils are concerned. That is totally unacceptable and should be rejected with contempt by the House.
Section 137 empowers a local authority to incur expenditure which it is satisfied is in the interests of the inhabitants of its area and where the local authority


otherwise has no powers to spend for that purpose. The maximum amount that can be spent under this head on all such purposes in any one year is, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bootle (Mr. Roberts) said, the product of a 2p rate for the particular local authority. The maximum naturally varies from one local authority to another according to their total rateable value. In the case of the Greater Manchester council, the product of a 2p rate is in the region of £8 million.
Local authorities have used section 137 for a wide variety of purposes for which they are not otherwise given express statutory powers. Significant among these purposes has been the provision of financial aid to industry and assistance to the employment base of their country, whether by loans, grants or guarantees.
Another important head of expenditure under section 137 is financial assistance to voluntary bodies, including councils of voluntary service, citizen's advice bureaux and various kinds of community assistance.

Mr. Lewis Carter-Jones: I have listened carefully to my right hon. Friend and to the remarks of the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Wainwright). I do not think that any of the items paid for under section 137 would result in objection from the Secretary of State. Will my right hon. Friend question the right hon. Gentleman to see if he objects to any such expenditure in west Yorkshire and Greater Manchester? It seems that the Secretary of State is throwing out the baby with the bath water?

Mr. Morris: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for those remarks, to which I hope the Secretary of State will respond. I shall be referring in more detail to the purpose for which section 137 is being used in Greater Manchester.
In the sphere of employment and economic initiatives, Greater Manchester county council has helped—to give two examples, among many, which the House will applaud — both the Greater Manchester economic development corporation and the loans scheme guarantee.
In Greater Manchester today, we have male unemployment rates of over 50 per cent. in many localities. In some, the figure now exceeds 60 per cent. Youth unemployment figures are, in some parts of Greater Manchester, even more grievous. Who then can complain of the uses to which section 137 has been put in terms of trying to create jobs in the conurbation and to inspire economic development?
Among grants to voluntary organisations, the Greater Manchester youth association is assisted. Other organisa-tions which benefit are the Greater Manchester council for voluntary service, the co-operative Development Agency, the Marriage Guidance Council, the YMCA and One-Parent Families. Free school milk is funded and young athletes are aided.
What is irresponsible or objectionable about that record of help to the voluntary sector? Will such help continue if the new clause is approved? I believe it to be threatened by what is proposed and I ask voluntary organisations generally to mobilise now against the Bill.
As has been made clear, there will be a test of opinion about the Bill in the metropolitan councils next spring. Let the Government be forewarned that it is a test of opinion which we are wholly determined to win.

Mr. Wareing: When replying to a question from me last week about the rate limitation placed on Merseyside county council, the Secretary of State gave an abysmal answer.
I had pointed out that 80 per cent. of the expenditure of that county council went on the police, fire service and public transport undertaking. The right hon. Gentleman gave me the measly answer that Merseyside and other authorities should refrain from spending money on aiding the cause of the miners.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Bootle (Mr. Roberts) pointed out, the sum total to help the miners has been £70,000, which in terms of Merseyside's expenditure is peanuts. My hon. Friend pointed out that £4·8 million was the product of a 2p rate on Merseyside. So far for 1984–85, £4·4 million has been authorised. Of that, only £200,000 will be spent on grants to voluntary bodies, of which over 50 per cent., £101,000, will go to the Merseyside voluntary service organisation, and £17,000 to the Toxteth community council. We took over that bill when the Liberal Liverpool council refused to give aid to Toxteth immediately after the riots in that part of the city. Given the riots that took place in Toxteth in 1981, are there any Conservative Members who think that it was wrong to spend £17,000 on aiding the people in an area of acute unemployment?

Mr. Malcolm Thornton: It depends on which organisation is given aid.

Mr. Wareing: The hon. Gentleman, who always seems to speak from a sedentary position, should know the sorts of organisations that are being helped in Toxteth. The Toxteth community council is an umbrella organisation of the people of that area. Instead of prancing about the international garden festival, the hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Thornton) should examine the way in which the county council has used its section 137 money.
I am proud of the fact that I am still the chairman of the Merseyside Economic Development Company. Through its subsidiary, Merseyside Improvements Ltd., that company has created 550 jobs that will offer short-term employment. That is its achievement since 1982. It has created a Merseyside training organisation which is developing skills in heavy engineering, electronics, computer skills, and commercial business.
The Merseyside Enterprise Board is a subsidiary of the company which I chair. Since its establishment last year it has already considered 12 applications for funding and will be assisting to the tune of £250,000 a number of individuals who will be forming their own companies. The Merseyside Economic Development Office is the main distributor of section 137 money on Merseyside. It was created during the chairmanship of the Merseyside county council by a former Member of this place, the late Sir Kenneth Thompson. Since its establishment in 1978 it has been responsible for ensuring, under both Tory and Labour Administrations, that £5 million has been spent to aid 1,126 companies. At the same time it has created 7,700 jobs.
The Secretary of State should bear in mind that the cost per job under the county councils help for active small enterprises scheme—CHASE—has been £661, whereas the average cost per job created under the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry through the regional development grant system is no less than £35,000. Instead


of prancing around the international garden festival, the Secretary of State should visit MERCEDO, where we will teach him how to create jobs in a cost-effective manner with the help of the private sector. We shall do that in a way that will ensure the real involvement of the local population. The disposition of the moneys expended is not determined by a quango of the sort that is well liked by the Government.
I was proud to create on Merseyside a co-operative development agency. My right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris) talked about the efforts that had been made in Manchester. He will be interested to know that on Merseyside we have developed 14 co-operatives since 1982. These are examples of real democracy in action on the shop floor. The House should know that 22 groups have been formed for a feasibility study with a view to setting up other co-operatives. An average of 4,000 firms a year have been given advice on finance, marketing and other business matters by MERCEDO since 1978.
The private and public sectors work in harmony through the Merseyside county council. Recently, the right hon. Gentleman visited the Merseyside Enterprise Forum and will have seen for himself the complete lack of enthusiasm for and opposition to his plans for Merseyside. The Merseyside chamber of commerce has come out overwhelmingly in support of what the Opposition are doing.

It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.

Ordered,
That, at this day's sitting, the consideration of Lords Amendments to the Local Government (Interim Provisions) Bill may be prodeeded with, though opposed, until any hour. — [Mr. Archie Hamilton.]

Question again proposed, That amendment (a) to the proposed Lords amendment No. 9 be made.

Mr. Wareing: The EEC has contributed £1,800,000 to employment-generating schemes through CHASE and other programmes supported by MERCEDO. The EEC and other Government Departments believe that what we are doing is right. We would not obtain assistance from the EEC without that departmental backing.
The Secretary of State may hold over Merseyside controversial grants similar to those that he is holding over for the GLC. In the period 1981 to 1984, during which a progressive Labour administration has been in control at Metropolitan house on Merseyside, only 5·65 per cent. of the money spent under section 137 has been a subject of party political controversy on the county council. That means that nearly 95 per cent. of the schemes and the employment generated by the Labour councils on Merseyside have had the full support and backing of the entire council. If the Secretary of State wants to argue the case, he should address himself to the Bishop and Archbishop of Liverpool and to the Merseyside chamber of commerce and note what they have to say. They will tell the right hon. Gentleman that, to ensure that there is a democratic organisation to generate employment on Merseyside, a county-wide authority is needed, with the backing of the people of the area.

Mr. Boyes: The decision of the Secretary of State to introduce this measure shows vindictiveness and a lack of understanding of what local government is all about, and

especially a lack of understanding of what is happening in the north-east, which is one of the most deprived areas in Britain.
The vast bulk of the section 137 cash is used by Tyne and Wear county council to generate new jobs for our people. That is difficult when battling against a Government who are deliberately taking jobs away from the area at the same time as we are trying to create jobs and to protect the new jobs that are left. I do not expect the Secretary of State to agree with the idea of money being used for that purpose, but he might agree with me that the second largest amount of money is spent on voluntary organisations. Those voluntary organisations are defending the interests of the most disadvantaged groups in our area—the elderly, the poor, the handicapped, and so on. If the Secretary of State gets his way, those organisations will be subjected to delay. They will not know exactly what is going on. There is a big danger that many of our voluntary organisations, with which we are proud to be associated and which are doing a magnificent job, might go to the wall.
The Secretary of State might say that there is a possibility that the cash could be wasted. Is it not a fact that it has been possible under the existing rules to challenge that action in the courts? Is it not true that what the Secretary of State is doing is totally unnecessary, and is it not true that section 137 has been used only in the interests of the people in the area? The hon. Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth) is not exactly a friend of the Labour party. Certainly he is not a friend of local government. But when describing how Tyne and Wear county council had used section 137 he said:
The Labour-controlled County of Tyne and Wear"—
and that is what this is all about; he refers to the "Labour-controlled" county but does not suggest that the council has used the money in a way that it should not—
spent £694,294 last year. Only a payment of £250 to the Campaign Against the Appointment of Additional District Auditors could be described as in any way remotely political. The vast bulk of its spending went in support of industry and employment with the rest going in grants to national organisations like the NSPCC and the RSPCA and local ones like the Friends of Durham Cathedral.
However, the Secretary of State is saying that the metropolitan counties, of which Tyne and Wear is a representative example, have been profligate with their money and have not spent it wisely. It is apparent that a few of his supporters will question that.
What does the Secretary of State intend to do about the non-metropolitan counties and the boroughs? It not this a warning to them and their right to spend section 137 money that they, too, may find the powers to do so taken from them in the future? We take that warning seriously, and we shall watch what the Government are doing very closely.
The Government have adopted a vindictive attitude towards Labour-controlled authorities. They are authorities which know their regions and areas, and they apply criteria to determine which bodies to fund, knowing what local initiatives are needed. Now the Secretary of State intends to take over that responsibility and, as far as I am aware, he has nowhere stated his criteria. All that we can see is that there will be a load of civil servants carrying out in a long, painful, slow and costly way the functions which local government officers can perform speedily to help the people of Tyne and Wear.
The Government can spend their money how they want. When they want to spend money on a campaign against peace activists and to tell us that we are safe under civil defence in our personal crematoria and when they want to asset-strip companies and give them away to their rich friends to make them a little richer, that is all right. But when local government helps poor, elderly and disabled people, that is wrong.
This is a vindictive measure. It is unnecessary. I abhor it.

Mr. Stuart Holland: Section 137 grants are crucial, especially in an unemployment area. In an inner city borough such as Lambeth and my own constituency of Vauxhall, which has been recognised by Lord Scarman in his report on inner city disorders as one meriting priority attention in terms of employment creation, such grants are essential.
The rise in unemployment in Lambeth between March 1983 and March 1984 has been such that male unemployment is up by nearly 8 per cent., female unemployment is up by nearly 15 per cent., youth unemployment has risen by 50 per cent., the total unemployment rate has increased by 6 per cent. to nearly 20 per cent.
Can the Secretary of State ignore this? Can he claim that the problem will be resolved by the free working of market forces, when all the evidence is that enterprise in inner city areas is facing decline, that we have lost hundreds of thousands of small firms from inner city areas and that large firms have moved out either to satellite towns or increasingly into manufacturing abroad?
There is virtually no hope of economic recovery in our inner city areas unless there is some intervention in market forces. That appears not to be recognised by this Government, but it is recognised by European Governments, by the Japanese Government, by south east Asian Governments and by others. They see that reliance on free market forces alone, especially in an era of technological change, is to condemn whole communities to permanent, long-term structural unemployment which strikes at the least privileged in society. For example, Lambeth has the highest proportion of single-parent families in the country, quite apart from the number of blacks and young blacks in the community.
The new clause strikes at the whole purpose of allowing discretion to local authorities with local knowledge. That is crucial, inasmuch as if small and medium size enterprises are to flourish, they are best funded, aided and made accountable to those in the community who know those who operate them, what their track record is and what their best chances of success are.
The funding of voluntary organisations is another issue. Much criticism has centred on the GLC. However, the overwhelming proportion of section 137 funding, by both the GLC and the metropolitan authorities, is to organisations such as marriage guidance councils, citizens advice bureaux and groups working with the elderly, disabled and homeless who face a hopeless situation without this assistance.
I do not know of the experience of other hon. Members, but when dealing with my constituency case work—which is massive—I have had great assistance from the citizens advice bureaux and law centres. But this Government, who apparently feel that hon. Members can operate on the kind of funding that might have suited a

19th century gent, are unaware of the complexity of the cases that arise from multiple deprivation in inner city areas. They are unprepared to finance those neutral and unpolitical agencies which help hon. Members serve constituents whose interests we were elected to serve.
The Secretary of State's case is, I believe, completely unfounded. There is no way in which central Government civil servants can possibly substitute for the face to face contact and direct knowledge at present achieved by local councils. How will the Secretary of State know what mistakes are made? As a former civil servant in the 1960s and 1970s, time and again I saw how errors committed at the level of principal or below rarely and slowly surfaced to under-secretary or deputy secretary level.
If the right hon. Gentleman is very fortunate, and they ever get past his private office and permanent secretary, how will he possibly cope with the thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of cases that will undoubtedly result under a system which is supposed to be plural and based on checks and balances? I do not see how we can possibly balance the overcentralisation in the right hon. Gentleman's hands by real accountability for public money in the private and social sectors. Frankly, I suspect that the right hon. Gentleman has no real intention of sustaining that expenditure of public moneys in the private or social sectors, and that they are likely to be cut.
What about the kind of expenditure undertaken, for example, by the West Midlands enterprise board and the Greater London enterprise board? It is widely recognised elsewhere that the free enterprise zone system, supported by the Secretary of State and the Government, is a highly cost-ineffective way of reallocating existing jobs. The studies that have so far been carried out into these much vaunted schemes show that between 75 and 80 per cent. of jobs which have moved into the free enterprise zones have merely crossed frontiers as firms have decided to relocate because of the incentives they are given.
That has an effect on the public revenue and the Exchequer. After all, when viable enterprises do not pay tax, fewer funds are available for expenditure in the local community. It is a stunning contradiction from this Government, who came to office with a high philosophy of "Small is beautiful" and "The entrepreneur knows best." Instead, the Secretary of State believes that big is beautiful and that he knows best. That is centralisation and, as Labour Front Bench spokesmen have said, this is the kind of eastern European diktat and commissar-style Government that should be rejected by the House, from both sides.

Mr. Stephen Ross: Although I do not represent a metropolitan county, I recognise the great role played by most of the metropolitan counties in their enterprise and development boards. I believe that the Government's proposals will be a retrograde step.
As we were told by the research note from the Library:
This is a major new clause which imposes direct ministerial control on the use by the seven councils of their powers under section 137 of the Local Government Act 1972 … The new power will apply from 1 April. 1985, although it relates to contractual liabilities entered into on or after 26 June 1984".
That presumably means that regular receivers of money under section 137 will need to start queueing at the Secretary of State's office to find out whether their grants will be renewed.
I want to relate the tale of something that happened to me at 5 o'clock this evening. Mr. Richard Noble, who won the world land speed record, and who may be known to some hon. Members, came to my office and asked whether there was any hope of getting financial assistance from the Isle of Wight County Council's Employment Promotions Group, which I chair. He wishes to build a light aeroplane, which has already been designed.
I asked Mr. Noble whether he had been to the Department of Trade and Industry, which he had. He applied for money under an enterprise fund, called, I believe, the New Initiatives fund. He was told at the Department that he had a good case and that he was likely to succeed in his application. Other gentlemen were brought into the room and started to ask further questions. Mr. Noble asked when he might have the money, perhaps in a week, but they replied that he might be able to have it in three months time.
Mr. Noble asked why he would have to wait for three months, as he had nine people lined up for jobs, and wanted to get on with the project, and place contracts. The Department replied that there was a long waiting list. He gave up at that moment. But we are going to give him a decision on Friday.
That tale illustrates what will happen under the Bill. Will all those who are being helped now through the various enterprise boards be queueing up at the Secretary of State's office? It will stop initiative.
I have chaired the enterprise agency in my constituency for the past three years. I am very grateful to the private companies that put up the money in the first place. They are now getting rather tired, because they have contributed a total of about £20,000 a year to the board. They are now telling me—and I refer to The Shells, the four main high street banks and numerous local industries—that they believe that it is time that local authorities took over the financing of the enterprise Agency, because private companies cannot continue indefinitely to fund it.
Private industry is looking to local councils to take some of the burden away from them. They have acted, quite rightly, at the request of the Government, and have stepped in when they felt that there was a need to do so. But they cannot continue ad infinitum. Perhaps the different enterprise agencies are funded in different ways in different parts of the country. I have visited many of them and realise that BAT has a scheme in Liverpool and Southampton, as well as in Brixton. But they will not continue with it indefinitely. They expect the local authorities to pick up the cost at some stage.
As a result, Kent has set up a development board and there is a Hampshire development agency. All of the county councils are moving in that direction, as well as many of the boroughs. At the same time, our worst-hit areas in the metropolitan counties, inner London and elsewhere will find that such initiatives will be castrated and even closed down altogether. That is not the right way to proceed. It is a gloomy day for this country, and a gloomy outlook for the masses of unemployed people.
This has been a marvellous debate because we have heard from Merseyside and elsewhere of people who are using their own initiative at local level. The Government are living in cloud-cuckoo land if they think that all the support will come from private funds and initiatives. It does not happen like that in Japan. There, initiatives

started with central Government funding of some kind, or local funding. Most schemes start with regional and federal funds in America and with federal funds in Australia, and with the help of Government funding in most of Western Europe. But this Government, for some reason, think that it will all be funded through private entrepreneurs, who will roll out their money. But they will not, and the funding will have to come from central and local government.
The Secretary of State may be serious about wanting to do away with section 137 in relation to the metropolitan counties. He is under pressure to do away with it from another direction too. The debate in the other place revealed that Lord Bellwin may be thinking along those lines. If so, the Secretary of State is going in quite the wrong direction, and the sooner that he steps down from power so that we get a change in attitude and really start to devolve power for people to use their initiatives at local level, and have the ability and finance to do so, the better it will be for this country.

Mr. Piers Merchant: I do not wish to detain the House for more than a few minutes, but I feel that I would be neglecting my responsibilities to my constituents if I did not intervene in the light of the remarks of the hon. Member for Houghton and Washington (Mr. Boyes).
The hon. Member for Bootle (Mr. Roberts) made great play of justifying section 137 spending, however bizarre, by saying that that is what the people—the electorate— want. They do not. In the past few months, not hundreds but thousands of my constituents have directly expressed disgust at what they consider to be abuse and misuse of section 137 powers by one metropolitan authority— Tyne and Wear county council.
The amendment from the other place is an extremely welcome, if rather belated and limited, step towards curbing the abuse of the now highly discredited and infamous section 137 of the Local Government Act 1972 and should not be watered down or complicated by any further amendment such as the Opposition propose. I hope that at a more appropriate time there will be a review of the section, but tonight we are dealing only with its relevance to the new Bill.
The strictest control of section 137 spending is made necessary by the experience of the activities of the GLC and the metropolitan counties, particlarly over the past year. The simple fact is that vast sums of money— ratepayers money—have been wasted on party political campaigns that have normally been backed by only tiny proportion of the electorate. The extravagance has been justified under section 137 of the Act, though I suspect in a manner never originally intended by its draftsman.

Mr. Wareing: Will the hon. Gentleman inform us whether there is an ultra vires rule affecting section 137? If ratepayers in Newcastle or anywhere else are annoyed by the organisations or think that they are unrepresentative and not within the bounds of section 137, is there not redress through the courts?

Mr. Merchant: The hon. Gentleman knows very well that the wording of section 137 is so vague as to make legal action extremely difficult. He is also aware that it would be virtually impossible for every ratepayer at every stage at which he might complain to take the process through the courts of law, because of the expense incurred in so doing.
The view of the public is that, although these actions may be legally justified, they are not morally justified. That is one of my principal points about section 137. People do not accept that it is right for a local authority to take money away from them in taxation and spend it on propaganda designed to influence them, which might be paid for under section 137. It might subsidies a political campaign with which they do not agree or peddle a political line with which they profoundly disagree. Under a democratic system, about which Opposition Members purport to lecture us, local authorities should seek to carry out the will of the people and not use the people's money to persuade the electorate to bow to the views which that authority, in its wisdom, has decided must be imposed, or to subsidies activites with which the electorate has no sympathy.

Mr. Stuart Holland: The hon. Gentleman refers fluently to the will of the people—a French rather than an English phrase, but that does not matter. In this case, how does one test the will of the people other than by the vote at local authority level?

Mr. Merchant: The hon. Gentleman knows that many of the activities and spending decisions were never put to the people in local government elections and therefore were never tested in the first place. If the hon. Gentleman will bear with me, he will also hear how people have used their own methods of expression to show their dissatisfaction with the decisions on spending made under section 137.
It is right for Lords amendment No.9 to curb the abuses. In doing so, it is responding to the clear views of the public. Judging by statements and actions from the metropolitan county councils in the past few months, without the amendment they would engage in a reckless and irresponsible pay-out to every minority and complaining group that could be located, particularly if it were known to peddle a strong anti-Government political line. They would indulge in a violent propaganda onslaught against a popularly elected Government and would spend the money of thousands of people who had voted that Government in, and who now support that Government's political views.

Mr. Cash: Will my hon. Friend concede that there is no basis for using moneys under section 137 for the benefit of, for example, a miners' strike fund, which is being contemplated in Stafford at the moment?

Mr. Merchant: My hon. Friend anticipates me. He is right, and I intended to substantiate my argument by quoting one example of the abuses to which I have referred.
I have a petition, signed by more than 10,000 of my constituents, demanding that action be taken by the Government on this very point of subsidising a strike. My petition follows a deluge of unsolicited letters and telephone calls —a spontaneous reaction that immediately followed a decision by the Tyne and Wear county council to subsidise the miners' strike to the tune of £100,000, with the possibility of more to come.

Mr. Alex Carlile: rose—

Mr. Merchant: I have given way sufficiently. There is no doubt that the public were mortified by the decision

to subsidise the strike by £100,000 of ratepayers' money, and understandably they demanded that action be taken to protect them from further similar abuses.

Mr. Boyes: Will the hon. Gentleman be a little more careful in his use of language? He says that the Tyne and Wear county council intended to subsidise a strike fund, when actually it is guaranteeing an appeal to help those who are particularly deprived and without cash and food, such as miners' wives and families. Will he tell the House what percentage of Tyne and Wear's section 137 cash is represented by £100,000. Does he know exactly how much the 2p rate raises in Tyne and Wear? I will help him if he does not know the answer.

Mr. Merchant: I need no help from the hon. Gentleman. Had he listened to me more carefully, he would have heard that I did not say that the £100,000 was to be spent on a donation to the strike. I said that it was helping to subsidise the miners' strike, which it is doing by subsidising their dependants. That has the same effect, and the ratepayers of Tyne and Wear know that full well, which is why they expressed their opinions so forcefully in their letters, telephone calls and messages to me after this decision was taken. As for the amount of money, £100,000 is an extremely large sum of money, which could well be spent on many far worthier causes than subsidising a strike with a clear political motivation.
The fact that the council's case for its future — supported by an extensive campaign — was mortally damaged by the irresponsible decision to give £100,000 of ratepayers' money to such a cause need not concern us. What does concern me is the need to protect Tyneside ratepayers as well as those elsewhere from further abuses, particularly in the last year of a wayward authority. It is for that reason that I strongly commend the unrestricted amendment to the House.

Mr. Barron: It is right that I should follow the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, Central (Mr. Merchant) because I was going to start by saying that the word "Orwellian" has been used on a number of occasions tonight. No better description can be given to new clause 9(1). Let me remind hon. Members of exactly what it says:
Except with the consent of the Secretary of State neither the Greater London Council nor a metropolitan county council shall on or after 1st April 1985 incur any expenditure under section 137 of the principal Act".
That clause can best be described in three ways. First, it is a clause of hypocrisy. It is hypocritical that it is put down in another place by a Government who fought a general election on a policy to roll back the powers of the state.
Secondly, it is a clause of malice. The Government have lost every debate in the House, despite winning the votes, on the credibility of their legislation to abolish the six metropolitan counties and the GLC. I say that guardedly because we have won one vote in the other place on that, but I believe that the Bill is based on malice.
The third word to describe it is "prejudice". It is based on the prejudice that the Secretary of State showed earlier when he talked about extreme Left-wing councils. It is a prejudice that the Government show when they see local government, democratically elected, wanting to do things on other people's behalf in areas that they dislike. Sooner than go to the ballot box, they would rather turn round and abolish the councils. The proof of that is within the Bill.
It was said earlier that we are looking at the worst excesses that there have been of section 137 spending power. Subsection (3) makes it clear that the Government intend every penny that is to be spent under section 137 must be approved by the Secretary of State for the Environment. That expenditure is intended for local authorities to give to what, in their opinion, is in the best interests of the area and its inhabitants.
To say that the Secretary of State knows what is going on in the GLC, South Yorkshire county council and Tyne and Wear is to give him far too much credit. It is debatable whether the Secretary of State knows what is going on in the Department of the Environment, in view of some of the statements that he has made in the House recently. But there is certainly one thing that he cannot do, and that is replace the elected local government in south Yorkshire and the other metropolitan areas—local government that has been elected by the communities, that knows the communities' needs and knows how best to look after them.

Mr. Robert B. Jones: The hon. Gentleman says that that is for the good of the areas concerned. In that case how can the GLC possibly justify giving £7,000 to the Chile Democratico, £7,000 to the Union of Turkish Workers, or £16,000 to the Abyssinian Society?

Mr. Barron: I have no doubt that such decisions have been made by a democratically elected council. I do not believe for one minute that some people living in London have not been involved in areas such as Chile. Indeed, Sheffield, in the South Yorkshire couunty concil, has a big Chilean community, as does Rotherham. Many Chileans fled from a Government who were not averse to putting through legislation such as this.

Mr. Tony Banks: Would my hon. Friend be interested to know that the Abyssinian Society, which was mentioned as evidence of mis-spending under section 137, is supported by the Department of the Environment?

Mr. Barron: I am sure that the House is interested to know that. Any spending under section 137, which is deemed to be a misuse of public funds, can be challenged, as any ratepayer can take the council to court. The Secretary of State and other Ministers have been more than willing to do that recently. I do not hear anyone say that councils have been taken to court and found guilty of misusing funds.
I have a list of payments that were made in south Yorkshire under section 137 during 1983–84. In all, 12 per cent. of the total has gone to organisations representing ethnic minority groups in Rotherham, the Council for Voluntary Services in Sheffield, Rotherham, Doncaster and Barnsley and citizens advice bureaux in those areas. Most of the 12 per cent. goes to the Northern College. Many Conservative Members, who have privileged educations, do not realise what it does for adult education. Many people who had a secondary education could not go on to university. South Yorkshire county council has bravely supported the college and provided opportunities for further education. Some of the beneficiaries might be constituents of Conservative Members. The second largest part of the 12 per cent. goes on Christmas illuminations.
A £23,000 grant was given for illuminations in towns in south Yorkshire. Perhaps Conservative Members think they should bee taken down as they are a misuse of ratepayers' money.
The 12 per cent. of total expenditure represents £644,682 — hardly a massive sum in view of the council's total expenditure. However, 88 per cent. of the council's expenditure has gone on the sponsorship of training places and measures to combat unemployment. Some of the highest levels of unemployment in the country are in the south Yorkshire area. We see no evidence of the Government helping to solve the problem. If section 137 spending is to go into the hands of the Government and the Secretary of State, job opportunities and vocational training will disappear because the Secretary of State does not understand or know the needs of south Yorkshire. His Department cannot act quickly to answer a parliamentary question, let alone make a quick decision to save or create jobs in south Yorkshire.
The powers for which the Secretary of State is asking are Orwellian. Moreover, they are the very powers that the Conservatives were elected to roll back. Lords amendment No. 9 should be opposed by all hon. Members.

Mr. Patrick Jenkin: It hight be helpful if I intervene now. I have listened with care to what Opposition Members have said and I might reassure them of the purpose for which we tabled this new clause in another place, the manner in which we intend to apply it and especially the manner in which we intend not to apply it.
My hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, Central (Mr. Merchant) asked that section 137 should be reviewed. We are currently engaged on a review of it. When we have reached our conclusions, we shall bring our proposals to the House. I assure the House that under Lords amendment No. 9 we are in no way attempting to prejudge or pre-empt the results of the review, but are merely seeking to provide for the specific circumstances of the possible abolition of the upper tier councils.
As I said when we debated Lords amendment No. 2, the Government see a need to protect the assets of the abolition authorities, the position of successor councils and the rights of ratepayers in the areas involved. The hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Wainwright) invited me to explain the circumstances in which the new clause was introduced. I can do that briefly and succinctly. It followed directly from the Government's decision, which was accepted in another place, to provide for the continuation in office of the existing councillors for the period up to 1 April 1986 instead of nominating interim councils, as was originally proposed.
It was put to us with great force by a number of the lower tier authorities — some borough and district councils—that this was an additional opportunity for the GLC and the MCCs to dissipate their assets, thus ensuring that they were not available for successor councils, and that opportunity was enhanced by the change in the Bill which we accepted in another place. The authorities argued that for 1984–85 many councils would have committed their free 2p up to the maximum allowed and therefore the opportunity to misuse their right under section 137 in the current year was sufficiently limited for it to be unnecessary for the Government to take precautionary measures, but they pointed out forcefully and supported their argument with evidence that the risk of councils misusing the power in the last year of their


lives— I say this in answer to the hon. Member for Colne Valley — to salt away assets which should be available for successor councils offered too great a temptation for the Government to risk not having some long stop to prevent the worst excesses. That is why the clause was introduced.

Mr. Peter Hardy: rose——

Mr. Jenkin: If the hon. Gentleman will allow me to proceed, perhaps I shall allay his anxieties.
I have listened with care to the many speeches about the valuable work that is done with the funds provided by section 137. Many authorities use this power for sensible, laudable and worthwhile purposes. I should not wish the House to think that the Government believed otherwise. On the contrary, I pay tribute to the work that is done in many ways with the free 2p.

Mr. Hardy: The Secretary of State may be misleading the House, in that he seems to be suggesting that all second-tier authorities and all district metropolitan councils, as well as London boroughs, made representa-tions to him about this. Is it not the case that, although some London boroughs may have made representations such as he described, it is doubtful whether many second-tier authorities in the metropolitan counties did so? Which metropolitan authorities urged him to take the course that he is suggesting?

Mr. Jenkin: Part of the difficulty is that several of the district councils controlled by the Labour party did not allow their officers to talk to my Department. However, I assure the hon. Gentleman that representations have been made on behalf of some councillors in those authorities in precisely the terms that I described. I concede the hon. Gentleman's point to this extent: the overwhelming majority of the representations made to us were, of course, about the threat posed by the GLC and the misuse——

Hon. Members: By Tory councils.

Mr. Jenkin: Yes, from Tory councils. If Parliament accepts the legislation, they, among others, will inherit the powers and duties currently vested in the GLC.
I was making the point, which I hope the House will recognise is seriously intended, that section 137 has been and is being used by many authorities for worthwhile purposes. The hon. Member for Vauxhall (Mr. Holland) mentioned that it had been used in conjunction with urban policy, often for highly imaginative schemes in rundown inner city areas; some of the best schemes are in the partnership areas under the inner city policy. Section 137 provides the means for much of the local authority support for many valuable voluntary bodies and charitable organisations, and the right hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris) and the hon. Members for Bootle (Mr. Roberts) and for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Wareing) mentioned the importance which they attach to that. Used responsibly for the purposes for which it was intended, section 137 is a discretionary power which has done, and I have no doubt will continue to do, much good in local communities.

Mr. Wainwright: In respect of what the Secretary of State describes as the temptation to spend during 1985–86, he uses, as did his noble Friend in another place, vague, almost meaningless adjectives such as "wanton",

"irresponsible" and "excessive". In respect of voluntary organisations, he, with his noble Friend, speaks of "worthwhile" and "valuable" organisations having nothing to fear. Can he help the House by being a little more precise on the standards of judgement that he intends to apply?

Mr. Jenkin: I shall come to voluntary bodies in a moment, and what I shall say may be of some reassurance to the hon. Gentleman. The anxiety that has been expressed to us and on which, given the new circumstances of the extra year for the existing councils, we decided to take action, was that the flexibility of the section 137 power lays it open to the possibility of abuse by authorities which may believe that their lives are limited and therefore it may be better to spend the money than allow it to be devolved to their successor authorities. The fear expressed, primarily in London, is that section 137 could be used by the GLC to deprive itself of valuable assets that should be available—

Mr. Straw: How?

Mr. Jenkin: I shall tell the hon. Gentleman precisely how. It is perfectly possible— indeed, it has already been done—for the GLC to make substantial grants to the Greater London Enterprise Board, and for the board to use that money to buy property from the GLC, property which the GLC does not wish to fall into the hands of its successor authorities. The borough councils are apprehen-sive that that may be a temptation in the final year of the GLC's life because the GLC has succeeded in transferring many of its section 137 grants to other statutory bodies —I refer to an article in the Municipal Journal, in its interview with Mr. Livingstone — leaving only the enterprise board as the major beneficiary of the miscellaneous provisions fund.

Mr. Stuart Holland: What is wrong with that?

Mr. Jenkin: It provides the GLC with the opportunity to make substantial grants to the enterprise board. which can then use that money to buy assets from the GLC in a way that might not be open to attack by the auditors, but which would represent an abuse of the power as the council's life is limited and the assets should be devolved for the benefit of the borough councils. That is not a fanciful fear. Ratepayers' money would have been used with no benefit to the ratepayers generally, or even to the ratepayers at all. It is no idle fear. The leadership of the GLC has made it plain that it has every intention of resisting the implementation of abolition. The hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) confirmed that earlier. The product of a 2p rate in London is about £40 million.

Mr. Tony Banks: It is £38 million.

Mr. Jenkin: I said "about £40 million". I accept the hon. Gentleman's figure of £38 million. Without a long-stop such as that provided in the amendment, it would be open for the GLC to salt away substantial property by making grants under section 137 to a body such as the enterprise board, and so deprive the successor councils of the property that should devolve to them. That is the main purpose of the amendment.

Mr. Straw: The Secretary of State has not given one example of how he believes the enterprise board and the GLC will misuse the power of transfer. Is he suggesting


that the GLC could transfer the whole of Hampstead heath to the enterprise board? Do not the the existing law and the constitution of the board require that transfers be made only for proper purposes—which, as they are about job creation, I assume the Secretary of State supports?

Mr. Jenkin: We have some doubt about the validity of many of the schemes of the enterprise board. The hon. Gentleman does not deny that some transfer could be made. It is no fanciful fear by successor councils that the use of the power may give rise to the salting away of property that should be devolved to them. The Government would be failing in their duty to the successor councils and their ratepayers if they did not take steps in the new circumstances provided by the amendment, to protect ratepayers against such abuse. That is the purpose of the amendment.
We do not intend this as an attack on the voluntary sector. [HON. MEMBERS: "Rubbish."] The suggestion that we have such an intention is one more example of the scaremongering that we have experienced throughout the debates on the Bill. The Government are powerfully committed to support the voluntary sector — [Interruption.] If the hon. Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron) will contain himself and not shout at me, he may hear something to his advantage. The Government are committed to the voluntary sector. Under various powers we currently give about £150 million a year to the voluntary sector. Our stated aim is to ensure that adequate funding arrangements are made for the period after abolition.
The Lords amendment includes a provision for consents, both individual and by category. The clause does not come into force until next year. We have until then to work out the best way of giving general consents so that most of the charitable, voluntary support which councils give can be continued without the necessity of individual and time-consuming consent procedures by my Department.
We do not want to become the judges of whether, and how much, support should be given to this body or that body. The purpose of the Lords amendment is to prevent the use of the clause resulting in the alienation of assets which should be available for the successor authorities.
We are anxious to have discussions as soon as possible with those concerned with the use of these powers so that we can work out satisfactory consent procedures to minimise the need for the Department to examine large numbers of comparatively modest grants.
I ask my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, Central to accept that I do not believe that my Department should seek to judge between this body and that body or to differentiate between bodies of which we approve and those of which we do not. I have no doubt that some of the bodies covered by general consent will be those of which members of the Conservative party disapprove.
Our purpose is to prevent the misuse of the clause and so prevent the alienation of substantial property by the abolition authorities in advance of abolition. I hope that we shall be able, between now and the coming into effect of the clause, to work out satisfactory procedures so that the anxieties, which I recognise, can be dealt with. We should have been guilty of gross dereliction of duty if, in the new circumstances provided by the Lords amendment, we had not taken steps to prevent the abuse of section 137, which many of the successor authorities feared.
The amendments tabled by the opposition parties cannot be accepted as they stand. They would unduly fetter the way in which we envisage the Lords amendments will be used. Some of the amendments are unnecessary. I should certainly have to use my power reasonably, for that is part of the general law, so there is no need to build that into the statute.
11 pm
I am unclear, when I am asked to set out the general considerations, whether that is intended to apply to the individual case or to cases as a whole. I am asked to give reasons for refusing consent. Any decision would spell out the reasons for that, so it is not necessary to include a provision on that in the Bill.
We would aim to operate the clause with the minimum of delay and, as I said, with the widest use of general consents that we could sensibly devise, in discussion with those concerned about the clause. I hope, therefore, that the House will reject the Opposition amendments and accept Lords amendment No. 9 so that it may form part of the Bill.

Mr. Alex Carlile: Those of us who represent constituencies which are neither in the GLC area nor in the metropolitan counties came to this debate, unlike some hon. Members, having read the Bill and the amendments with perhaps a whiff of suspicion in our nostrils that we were seeing the beginnings of a general attack on section 137 of the 1972 Act.
The Secretary of State kept asking us to be reassured by his remarks. Far from being reassured, we now feel not a whiff of suspicion about the Government's intentions in relation to section 137, but stifled by the threats and flavour of what we know that the right hon. Gentleman intends to do to that section.
While the Secretary of State may give every reassurance which he feels able to provide about his views of the beneficial qualities of section 137—where, in his opinion, it is administered properly—and about the way in which applications under the new clause would be treated, those of us who read our papers and take the temperature of feelings among members of the Conservative party cannot feel reassured that the present Secretary of State's views, if they are genuine, would be reflected in the mouth of a successor in the likely event of a successor being appointed in the near future. Such reassurances as we receive from the right hon. Gentleman hold little sway with hon. Members who give them empirical thought rather than simply looking at them through the dogmatic eyes of sheer party manifesto politics.
Section 137 of the 1972 Act gives local authorities the opportunity to respond to local needs and aspirations in a way which takes into account, in a way that no other provision of local government statutes does, the local conditions at the time when a decision is made. I remind the right hon. Gentleman that section 137 results from the two most far-ranging inquiries into local government in England, Scotland and Wales within living memory, if not ever.
The Wheatley commission of 1969, which concerned Scotland, asserted that a general competence power should not be restricted in financial terms or by the need to secure approval from any higher authority. At paragraph 641 the Wheatley commission states:
It is to the local electorate that the local council should have to answer for the use of such a power.
That emphasises the desirability of such a power but makes it clear, as is right, that the sanction against abuse or misuse of such a power in some instances will be in the power of the local electorate to deal accordingly with its local council.
The Redcliffe-Maud report suggested at paragraph 323
that the only limit on the use of the new power should be the wishes of the electors and such restrictions as have to be placed on local government expenditure in the interests of national economic and financial policy.
There we have a clear view, after detailed and far-reaching research, that this is a matter which should be decided at local level by the local electors.
We have heard a good deal about section 137 of the 1972 Act, especially from the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, Central (Mr. Merchant), who I do not think has read it in his life. Much has been said about abuses of section 137 money. It has been suggested that it has been used for many improper purposes and the hon. Gentleman has assumed that they are permitted under section 137. He referred to a petition with 10,000 signatures protesting

about some abuse or misuse of section 137. Had he bothered to stay for the rest of the debate on the proposed new clause, I should have asked him whether anyone among the 10,000 had had the benefit of the advice which he should have given, which is that, if an individual feels that there has been an abuse of section 137, he should take action in the courts against it. Section 137 is as well drawn and as tightly drawn as is necessary and as was intended by Redcliffe-Maud. When the section refers to the interests of the area—[Interruption.] As it seems that some Labour Members on the Benches behind me have not read the section either, I shall quote subsection (1). I shall do so for the benefit of the rabble behind me. The subsection provides:
A local authority may, subject to the provisions of this section, incur expenditure which in their opinion is in the interests of their area"—
those are the important words—
or any part of it or all or some of its inhabitants".
The section does not refer to expenditure for the "benefit" of part of the inhabitants, which would be much broader than expenditure in the "interests" of the area and its inhabitants. The type of example which has been quoted extensively in the debate is open to challenge in the courts.
I move on from direct concern about the future of section 137 to my main concerns about the new clause. I am worried about the legal implications of the new clause. Subsection (2) will have a direct effect on contractual liabilities which were entered into, or which are to be entered into, between 26 June 1984 and 1 April 1985. If the GLC or a metropolitan county council between those two dates enters into any contract which includes expenditure out of the so-called 2p rate, out of section 137 money, it is important to remember that the local authority —the GLC or the metropolitan county council—enters into those contracts lawfully. That local authority is entitled by statute to enter into those contracts provided, as in all cases hitherto, that is done as a result of proper procedures within the GLC or the metropolitan county councils. The decision is reached democratically and, therefore, is fully accountable to the electorate.
We must remember that the decisions on how section 137 moneys are applied, leading to contracts concerned with section 137, may well apply to crucial parts of local authority and community life, including the employment of people involved in essential services. Those decisions may be directly or peripherally related to housing. They may be directly related to strategic planning and are likely to be concerned with services providing facilities for unemployed youngsters for 'whom, I believe many of us would agree, the GLC has done so much.
The provision in the new clause may bring established programmes to an end, and that is why amendment (h) is of considerable importance. The new clause is likely to have a dramatic and disturbing effect on existing important programmes. By this new clause—this fact may not have been realised by Labour Members — the Government are taking upon themselves the power to force the seven councils to break legally binding contracts. This decision has been lightly made, possibly without realising its commercial consequences. Some of those contracts have already been entered into. The starting date of 26 June 1984 has already passed. It could well be that many commercial undertakings will find that they have been damaged in terms of finances and employment by this provision.

Mr. Patrick Jenkin: I point out to the hon. and learned Gentleman that 26 June was the date on which the clause was tabled in another place. If anyone entered into a contract after that date, he is presumed to know that consent would be necessary for the contract.

Mr. Carlile: It is a strange comment upon our democratic institution that people should be bound by some amendment which has not been passed and which has been tabled in another place, where much of the Government's legislation was under severe attack. Subsection (3) severely exacerbates the position, because it enables the Government to decide whether it is "expedient" for a Labour-controlled council to incur the expenditure. The words of subsection (3) are an offensive mishmash of the subjective and the objective. Their overall effect is to give the Secretary of State the absolute power to dictate whether the action is "expedient" — whether he approves the envisaged expenditure according to his political principles, and not according to the political views of those who voted into office the council in question.
11.15 pm
Let us bear in mind some aspects of the expenditure which will now have to be decided by the Secretary of State. Looking at section 137(3) of the Local Government Act 1972, which I commend the rabble behind me to look at, we see that for example—heaven forbid—if there was another disaster of Aberfan proportions one of these councils wanting to contribute to the fund raised to help the sufferers from that disaster would have to go to the Secretary of State to have that expenditure approved, or not approved. If one of these seven councils wanted to contribute to a charitable body which ex hypothesi was controlled in its objects by the Charity Commissioners and subject to their scrutiny, it would have to go to the Secretary of State for approval or disapproval.
We face the unsavoury prospect of the Secretary of State telling one of these seven councils that it could not pay money to a charitable body, for example, the Police Benevolent Fund—though I suspect that he would allow a council to pay money to that—registered as a charity and subject to the controls of the law on charities and scrutinised by the commissioners. What an absurd situation that will be.
We shall also witness the unseemly sight of one of these seven councils wanting to give but a pittance — this provision deals with any money; even £25 —to one of those charitable bodies having to go cap in hand to the Secretary of State, and some minor civil servant making decisions which should be made by an accountable local authority.
This is a disgraceful provision, and it is a matter of amazement to see it come from a Government of the party which at one time to its credit espoused the principles of local government, local accountability, local democracy, local decision-making and the local determination of how spending should take place. Such a Government are now taking away even these small powers, given under section 137, from the local authorities so that the Secretary of State can decide what is expedient.
The word "expedient" has been used in statutes before. It was used in the case of the Central Criminal Court Act 1856, and it led in 1919 to a Mr. Barnett from Norwich being tried at the Central Criminal court because it was thought that a Norwich jury would not convict him of

stealing money from the officers' mess. The same unhealthy trend is shown here of the Government trying to take everything to the centre so that they can determine for themselves what should happen and remove from local people the right to decide, even to the limited 2 per cent. extent given in section 137, how money should be spent.
Subsection (4) gives the widest of powers to the Secretary of State to make decisions of general principle about the classes of spending under section 137 for which consent should be given. One can imagine that objective tests will be applied less rather than more often, especially as there is no obligation to give reasons.
Of course, we appreciate the assurance given by the Secretary of State, albeit one given only by the present Secretary of State, that he will give reasons where it is decided that expenditures should not be permitted. If, however, he is prepared to give such reasons, why does he not accept the amendment requiring him to do so?
During the Committee debates on the Police and Criminal Evidence Bill, this very point was raised time and again — that reasons should be given when a decision is reached. I concede that that was in a very different context, but why should not the same principle apply in this case so that the local electorate can at least their parliamentary representatives — if they are Conservative Members—accountable for their decisions come the next general election?
The sad fact is that the dictatorship of London and the metropolitan counties which is now about to start is shocking the civilised democratic world, particularly our counterparts in the great cities of countries such as Germany and Japan. It is a disgrace that we should face this type of legislation in the United Kingdom.

Mr. Laurie Pavitt: I shall not detain the House for long. Indeed, had the Secretary of State done me the courtesy of allowing me to intervene, I would not now be speaking.
On three occasions the Secretary of State—with great emphasis—tried to convince the House that there would be no political intervention in the work of voluntary organisations. The right hon. Gentleman knows very well that in my constituency in the London borough of Brent there was a cause celebre, when a Labour councillor defected to the Conservatives, as a result of which the constitution of the council changed.
Recently, during the allocation of urban aid funds by the Secretary of State and the Department of the Environment, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary, the hon. Member for Ealing, Acton (Sir G. Young), saw only one person — Councillor Ambrosine Neil — the new Conservative councillor. As a result, the organisation of which she is full-time chairman received a Government allocation.
The Secretary of State claimed that he would be even-handed and that there would be no political intervention. I challenge him to state why the only person in Brent who received an allocation was the Conservative defector. How can he now say on three occasions that there will be no political intervention? If the history of the past is any indication of the future, everything that he said is complete nonsense.

Mr. Tony Banks: The Secretary of State has convinced everyone that he is a great believer in cerebral


hygiene. He comes to the Dispatch Box with nothing in his head, and he allows nothing to be put in it while standing at it.
The right hon. Gentleman made a number of statements, no doubt in an attempt to be reasonable, but it is clear that section 137 is that part of local government expenditure—certainly in relation to the GLC—which most upsets the Government. We have heard ad nauseam about the English Collective of Prostitutes, which received a GLC grant of £400. We have also heard a great deal about Babies Against the Bomb. These examples are continually quoted by Conservative Members as their justification for taking steps against section 137 and, indeed, for abolishing the GLC. Frankly, that is the only justification that Conservative Members have for wanting to abolish an authority such as the GLC. They are dragging an authority like the GLC through the indignities of the sort of bear garden that the House has become when we are considering serious matters of local government concern.

Mr. Jerry Hayes: rose—

Mr. Banks: I am sorry, but I cannot give way to an hon. Member who has only recently walked into the Chamber and is clearly benefiting from a very heavy dinner. I shall not give way to him.
Perhaps the Secretary of State would like to be a little more specific, although no doubt he will stick to his position of cerebral hygiene. Why does he not answer the questions that were put to him tonight from this side of the House? Why does he not answer the questions that were put to him by Opposition Members when we asked him to specify the organisations with which he disagrees?
I asked the Secretary of State to list those organisations which are funded by the GLC and the metropolitan county councils under section 137 which, in the view of his Department, are not in the interests of those council areas, or any part of them, or all or some of their inhabitants. In other words, I asked him to specify the organisations which give rise to so much offence and which have led the Secretary of State to want to adopt draconian powers with regard to the operation of section 137. The answer that came back was no. The Secretary of State does not have a case.
The Secretary of State got up and started talking about the GLC's asset stripping. Coming from a Government who have asset stripped within the public sector and who have flogged off to their friends and the cheap petty crooks in the City, Amersham, INMOS, Jaguar, Britoil, Sealink and so on, those accusations come ill from the lips of the Secretary of State, representing as he does a Government who are selling the seed corn of this country.
The GLC has always acted responsibly with regard to public assets. I do not see how the GLC's transferring assets to a London borough could be said to be asset stripping. Those assets stay within the public sector, which is far more than we can say about the Government and the way in which they have sold off the profitable parts of the nationalised industries.
The Secretary of State referred to the Greater London Enterprise Board and what it has been doing. The GLC has indeed been trying to fund the enterprise board so that the Government, the Secretary of State, and his Ministers cannot get at it. We have been entirely successful, because

it is very easy staying two steps ahead of a clown advised by a bunch of grinning monkeys from the Department of the Environment.
Let me just tell the Secretary of State what the Greater London Enterprise Board has done. It has saved 2,000 jobs in the past year— [HON. MEMBERS: "Where?"]—in London. Indeed, each of those jobs has cost the GLEB £4,000 per job created or saved. Contrast that with the London Docklands Development Corporation and the enterprise zones, which have produced 3,000 jobs at an average of £20,000 per job. The Greater London Enterprise Board is saving jobs, which is something I recommend the Government should try to do. If they did, we should not have 3½ million people unemployed.
The Government have relied merely on smear and innuendo throughout the debates on part IV when they refer to section 137. When the Secretary of State is prepared to give some information to the House about the organisations which he opposes, to which he wishes to give no support, we might be able to believe him when he says that he will look after those genuine organisations which come to the Government for funding under section 137. Until the Secretary of State is prepared to give that sort of information, his word is worth nothing, and it is worth nothing to members of the GLC or to Opposition Members.

Mr. Malcolm Bruce: I came along to hear some assurances from the Secretary of State about this proposal, which I view with great trepidation not only for those who live under the metropolitan counties and the GLC but for those who live under all local authorities. Under this Government, in the past four or five years we have seen, step by step, powers taken away from local authorities and concentrated in the hands of the Government.
11.30 pm
Representing a Scottish constituency, as I do, where we saw the Secretary of State for Scotland being used as a test bed by the Government—the Conservative party has diminishing support in Scotland—and introducing rate-capping legislation which was then extended to the rest of the country, I wonder whether we can have an assurance from the Secretary of State for the Environment that such measures will not be extended to other local authorities in future. The Government's record to date, in their actions towards local authorities, is not encouraging.
Before local government reorganisation in Scotland, many local authorities, and ancient and royal burghs, had common good funds which were raised from the local community and used for its good. They were much appreciated and welcomed at the time. Regrettably, several of those authorities mistakenly handed over those common good funds at the time of local government reorganisation. Those who did have lived to regret it, because they have seen them disappear into the maw that is increasingly controlled by the Government. One or two of them have had the good sense to preserve those funds. Representing part of the city of Aberdeen, I can say that it is. one of the authorities which have a common good fund, which it can and does use for the good of the people of Aberdeen.

Mr. Norman Hogg: What relevance has the city of Aberdeen common good fund to the Bill?

Hon. Members: "Hear, hear."

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Ernest Armstrong): Order. I have been listening carefully and waiting for the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) to relate what he is saying to the amendment before the House.

Mr. Bruce: The point that I am making to the House is that the discretion to raise a 2p rate is something that local authorities, in one form or another, have had for many years, and have used responsibly for the good of the community. That is basically the reason why what the Secretary of State proposes to do is against the interests of local authorities. I am amazed that the Deputy Chief Whip of the Labour party seeks to silence me in my argument to support—[Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The Chair is very anxious to ensure that the hon. Gentleman keeps to the matters before the House.

Mr. Bruce: The Government propose legislation for the GLC and the metropolitan counties—

Mr. Robert Kilroy-Silk: In England.

Mr. Bruce: Indeed. The legislation will take away those authorities' rights to raise money for the good of the local community with local discretion. That is a retrograde step, and is not in the interests of those communities. The Government have failed to justify their case. I believe that I have the right and the responsibility to speak up for my constituents, to oppose a piece of legislation setting a precedent which the Government may seek to use in future as has been hinted in another place.
As I have already said, the Government have demonstrated consistently over the years that they have been in power that as they have progressed from one local government Bill to another, on the basis of what they have applied, they have subsequently applied it to other local authorities. That is my point, and I believe that it is important, valid and relevant. The measures should be opposed for the very reason that they set a precedent that is contrary to the interests not only of the ratepayers of the GLC and the metropolitan counties and the consumers, but of those who live in all other local authorities and who view the measures with concern. I would also say that it is my understanding — [Interruption.] It is my understanding—

Mr. Tony Marlow: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am unable to decide whether the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) is in order, because I cannot hear what he is saying.

Mr. Bruce: I understand that there is likely to be a vote on the matter. I assume, on the basis of the remarks that have been made, that those who do not represent metropolitan counties and the GLC will not seek to vote. If they seek to vote, presumably I have the right to speak.

Mr. Marlow: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it not an abuse that a party that makes up less than 3 per cent. of the membership of the House should have, as a fourth speaker in this short debate, an hon. Member who represents a Scottish constituency, talking about measures that apply to English constituencies? Is it not an abuse that—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The House knows that any right hon. or hon. Member can speak, as long as he keeps within the points of order.

Mr. Bruce: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for protecting what I believed to be the rights of an hon. Member when I was elected to speak in this Chamber. My speech was meant to be brief, and it has only been interventions that have extended it. My important and valid point is that local authorities are entitled, and should be, to raise money to spend for the local good.

Mr. Merlyn Rees: That is the fourth time that the hon. Gentleman has said that.

Mr. Bruce: Of course I have said it four times—I keep being interrupted. I shall clearly have to go on longer until I have made the point clear. [Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I have no wish to direct the hon. Gentleman to resume his seat, but he must not go on giving us tedious repetition.

Mr. Bruce: I believe that the Secretary of State has shown that he wishes the kind of measures that would be taken under existing legislation by the GLC and the MCCs to be referred to his Department. The consequence of that will not simply be that decisions are taken remotely and away from the people who are concerned, but that it will be impossible for his Department to take the right decisions. Many hon. Members, who have had experience on behalf of their constituencies of dealing directly with Departments, will know that frequently Departments do not know the local circumstances, issues and needs. It is for that reason that we have local government in the first place. If the Secretary of State were to persist in this legislation, and other legislation, he would be taking away all powers of local authorities, and leaving us with a centrally administered state, which would be contrary to the wishes of the people and to the wishes that have been expressed forcefully inside and outside the House.
I am puzzled by a Government who claim to be concerned about a democracy but introduce such measures, when 56 of the 84 Members for the Greater London area are Conservatives. With such a majority the Government should have felt confident about taking their campaign to the people in the GLC elections. It appears that they are not, and their actions have antagonised voters and reduced their support in the areas from which they are seeking to take powers. This demonstrates that what the Government are doing is not only wrong but fundamentally unpopular, especially in the areas directly affected. This will increasingly be seen to be so.
As a Scottish Member, I believe that it was right and proper for me not only to speak out for my area, because I believe that it will be similarly threatened, but because I should speak out for those in other parts of the country who believe that their rights are affected. The Government have failed to make a case and have simply issued trite platitudes. The Secretary of State in reply to all the protests that have been put to him this evening, has failed to make a detailed statement as to why and how this measure will benefit the ratepayers in the councils concerned. The opposite has been the case. The Government would be wise to listen carefully to what is being said by hon. Members and those outside the House who have articulated cogent reasons, to which the Minister has not been able to respond.

Amendment (a) proposed to Lords amendment No. 9, in line 20, at end insert
'(4A) The consent of the Secretary of State under this section shall not be required to the incurring of expenditure where the recipient person or body is, for all or part of any one financial year, in receipt concurrently of funding from monies voted by Parliament including Urban Programme, the grant-in-aid to the Manpower Services Commission or funds adminstered by the Department of Industry, or in receipt concurrently of funding from the European Social Fund or Regional Fund, or in receipt concurrently of funds provided by any registered charity.'.— [Mr. Straw.]

Question put, That amendment (a) to the Lords amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 160, Noes 301.

Division No. 455]
[11.39 pm


AYES


Alton, David
Flannery, Martin


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Foster, Derek


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Foulkes, George


Ashton, Joe
Fraser, J. (Norwood)


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Garrett, W. E.


Barnett, Guy
George, Bruce


Barron, Kevin
Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John


Beckett, Mrs Margaret
Godman, Dr Norman


Beith, A. J.
Golding, John


Bell, Stuart
Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)


Benn, Tony
Hancock, Mr. Michael


Bennett, A. (Dent'n &amp; Red'sh)
Hardy, Peter


Bermingham, Gerald
Harman, Ms Harriet


Bidwell, Sydney
Harrison, Rt Hon Walter


Blair, Anthony
Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith


Boyes, Roland
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Heffer, Eric S.


Brown, N. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne E)
Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)


Brown, R. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne N)
Holland, Stuart (Vauxhall)


Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith)
Howell, Rt Hon D. (S' heath)


Bruce, Malcolm
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Buchan, Norman
Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)


Caborn, Richard
Hughes, Simon (Southwark)


Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd &amp; M)
Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Canavan, Dennis
Kennedy, Charles


Carlile, Alexander (Montg'y)
Kilroy-Silk, Robert


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Lambie, David


Cartwright, John
Lamond, James


Clarke, Thomas
Leadbitter, Ted


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Leighton, Ronald


Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S.)
Lewis, Terence (Worsley)


Cohen, Harry
Litherland, Robert


Conlan, Bernard
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Cook, Frank (Stockton North)
Lofthouse, Geoffrey


Corbett, Robin
McCartney, Hugh


Corbyn, Jeremy
McDonald, Dr Oonagh


Cowans, Harry
McGuire, Michael


Cox, Thomas (Tooting)
Mackenzie, Rt Hon Gregor


Craigen, J. M.
Maclennan, Robert


Cunliffe, Lawrence
McWilliam, John


Cunningham, Dr John
Madden, Max


Dalyell, Tam
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Davies, Ronald (Caerphilly)
Maynard, Miss Joan


Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'ge H'l)
Michie, William


Deakins, Eric
Mikardo, Ian


Dewar, Donald
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce


Dixon, Donald
Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)


Dobson, Frank
Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)


Dormand, Jack
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)


Douglas, Dick
Nellist, David


Dubs, Alfred
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.
O'Brien, William


Eadie, Alex
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Eastham, Ken
Owen, Rt Hon Dr David


Evans, John (St. Helens N)
Park, George


Ewing, Harry
Parry, Robert


Fatchett, Derek
Patchett, Terry


Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
Pavitt, Laurie


Fisher, Mark
Pendry, Tom





Penhaligon, David
Smith, C.(Isl'ton S &amp; F'bury)


Pike, Peter
Snape, Peter


Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)
Soley, Clive


Prescott, John
Spearing, Nigel


Redmond, M.
Straw, Jack


Rees, Rt Hon M. (Leeds S)
Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)


Richardson, Ms Jo
Thompson, J. (Wansbeck)


Roberts, Allan (Bootle)
Thorne, Stan (Preston)


Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)
Tinn, James


Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)
Torney, Tom


Rogers, Allan
Wainwright, R.


Rooker, J. W.
Warden, Gareth (Gower)


Ross, Ernest (Dundee W)
Wareing, Robert


Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)
Welsh, Michael


Rowlands, Ted
Wigley, Dafydd


Sheerman, Barry
Winnick, David


Sheldon, Rt Hon R.
Woodall, Alec


Shore, Rt Hon Peter



Short, Ms Clare (Ladywood)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Silkin, Rt Hon J.
Mr. James Hamilton and Mr. Allen McKay.


Skinner, Dennis





NOES


Adley, Robert
Colvin, Michael


Aitken, Jonathan
Conway, Derek


Alexander, Richard
Cope, John


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Cranborne, Viscount


Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Critchley, Julian


Amess, David
Crouch, David


Ancram, Michael
Currie, Mrs Edwina


Ashby, David
Dicks, Terry


Aspinwall, Jack
Dorrell, Stephen


Atkins, Rt Hon Sir H.
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.


Atkins, Robert (South Ribble)
Dover, Den


Atkinson, David (B'm'th E)
du Cann, Rt Hon Edward


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Vall'y)
Durant, Tony


Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)
Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Eggar, Tim


Batiste, Spencer
Emery, Sir Peter


Bendall, Vivian
Fallon, Michael


Berry, Sir Anthony
Farr, Sir John


Best, Keith
Favell, Anthony


Bevan, David Gilroy
Fenner, Mrs Peggy


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey


Biggs-Davison, Sir John
Fookes, Miss Janet


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Forman, Nigel


Body, Richard
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Forth, Eric


Bottomley, Peter
Fowler, Rt Hon Norman


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Fox, Marcus


Bowden, A. (Brighton K'to'n)
Franks, Cecil


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Fraser, Peter (Angus East)


Boyson, Dr Rhodes
Freeman, Roger


Braine, Sir Bernard
Fry, Peter


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Gale, Roger


Bright, Graham
Gardiner, George (Reigate)


Brinton, Tim
Gardner, Sir Edward (Fylde)


Brooke, Hon Peter
Glyn, Dr Alan


Brown, M. (Brigg &amp; Cl'thpes)
Goodhart, Sir Philip


Browne, John
Goodlad, Alastair


Bruinvels, Peter
Gorst, John


Bryan, Sir Paul
Gow, Ian


Buck, Sir Antony
Gower, Sir Raymond


Budgen, Nick
Grant, Sir Anthony


Bulmer, Esmond
Greenway, Harry


Butcher, John
Gregory, Conal


Butterfill, John
Griffiths, E. (B'y St Edm'ds)


Carlisle, John (N Luton)
Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Grist, Ian


Carttiss, Michael
Grylls, Michael


Cash, William
Gummer, John Selwyn


Chalker, Mrs Lynda
Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Chapman, Sydney
Hampson, Dr Keith


Chope, Christopher
Hanley, Jeremy


Churchill, W. S.
Hannam, John


Clark, Hon A. (Plym'th S'n)
Harris, David


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Harvey, Robert


Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)
Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael


Cockeram, Eric
Hawkins, C. (High Peak)






Hawkins, Sir Paul (SW N'folk)
Monro, Sir Hector


Hawksley, Warren
Montgomery, Fergus


Hayes, J.
Moore, John


Hayhoe, Barney
Mudd, David


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Murphy, Christopher


Henderson, Barry
Neale, Gerrard


Hill, James
Needham, Richard


Hind, Kenneth
Nelson, Anthony


Hirst, Michael
Neubert, Michael


Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)
Nicholls, Patrick


Holland, Sir Philip (Gedling)
Normanton, Tom


Holt, Richard
Norris, Steven


Hooson, Tom
Onslow, Cranley


Hordern, Peter
Oppenheim, Phillip


Howard, Michael
Osborn, Sir John


Howarth, Alan (Stratf'd-on-A)
Ottaway, Richard


Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)
Page, Sir John (Harrow W)


Howell, Ralph (N Norfolk)
Page, Richard (Herts SW)


Hubbard-Miles, Peter
Patten, John (Oxford)


Hunt, David (Wirral)
Pattie, Geoffrey


Hunter, Andrew
Pawsey, James


Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas
Percival, Rt Hon Sir Ian


Irving, Charles
Pollock, Alexander


Jackson, Robert
Porter, Barry


Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick
Powell, William (Corby)


Jessel, Toby
Powley, John


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Proctor, K. Harvey


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Raffan, Keith


Jones, Robert (W Herts)
Renton, Tim


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Rhodes James, Robert


Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine
Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas


Kershaw, Sir Anthony
Ridsdale, Sir Julian


Key, Robert
Rifkind, Malcolm


King, Roger (B'ham N'field)
Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)


Knight, Gregory (Derby N)
Robinson, Mark (N'port W)


Knight, Mrs Jill (Edgbaston)
Roe, Mrs Marion


Lamont, Norman
Rost, Peter


Lang, Ian
Rumbold, Mrs Angela


Latham, Michael
Ryder, Richard


Lawler, Geoffrey
Sackville, Hon Thomas


Lawrence, Ivan
Sayeed, Jonathan


Lee, John (Pendle)
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)
Shelton, William (Streatham)


Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Lewis, Sir Kenneth (Stamf'd)
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)


Lightbown, David
Shersby, Michael


Lilley, Peter
Silvester, Fred


Lloyd, Ian (Havant)
Sims, Roger


Lloyd, Peter, (Fareham)
Skeet, T. H. H.


Lord, Michael
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)


Luce, Richard
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Lyell, Nicholas
Speller, Tony


McCurley, Mrs Anna
Spencer, Derek


MacGregor, John
Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)


MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire)
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


MacKay, John (Argyll &amp; Bute)
Squire, Robin


Maclean, David John
Stanbrook, Ivor


McQuarrie, Albert
Steen, Anthony


Madel, David
Stern, Michael


Major, John
Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)


Malins, Humfrey
Stevens, Martin (Fulham)


Malone, Gerald
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


Maples, John
Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)


Marland, Paul
Stewart, Ian (N Hertf'dshire)


Marlow, Antony
Stradling Thomas, J.


Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Sumberg, David


Mates, Michael
Tapsell, Peter


Maude, Hon Francis
Taylor, John (Solihull)


Mawhinney, Dr Brian
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman


Mayhew, Sir Patrick
Temple-Morris, Peter


Mellor, David
Thatcher, Rt Hon Mrs M.


Merchant, Piers
Thomas, Rt Hon Peter


Miller, Hal (B'grove)
Thompson, Donald (Calder V)


Mills, Iain (Meriden)
Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)


Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon)
Thorne, Neil (Ilford S)


Miscampbell, Norman
Thornton, Malcolm


Mitchell, David (NW Hants)
Thurnham, Peter


Moate, Roger
Townend, John (Bridlington)





Trippier, David
Wells, Bowen (Hertford)


Trotter, Neville
Wheeler, John


Twinn, Dr Ian
Whitfield, John


van Straubenzee, Sir W.
Whitney, Raymond


Vaughan, Sir Gerard
Wiggin, Jerry


Viggers, Peter
Wilkinson, John


Waddington, David
Wolfson, Mark


Wakeham, Rt Hon John
Wood, Timothy


Waldegrave, Hon William
Woodcock, Michael


Walden, George
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Walker, Rt Hon P. (W'cester)
Younger, Rt Hon George


Ward, John



Wardle, C. (Bexhill)
Tellers for the Noes:


Warren, Kenneth
Mr. Robert Boscawen and Mr. Tim Sainsbury.


Watson, John



Watts, John

Question accordingly negatived

Amendment (h) proposed to Lords amendment No. 9, in line 20, at end insert—
'(4E) No consent shall be required under this section in respect of expenditure incurred under section 137 of the principal Act by way of a payment to any body or organisation where
(a) such body or organisation has been in receipt of a payment under the said section 137 by the local authority concerned within the two previous financial years, and
(b) the payment to be made to such body or organisation does not exceed the total amount so made in the previous two financial years.'.—[Mr. Beith.]

Question put, That amendment (h) to the Lords amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 156, Noes 297.

Division No. 456]
[11.51 am


AYES


Alton, David
Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'ge H'l)


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Deakins, Eric


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Dewar, Donald


Ashton, Joe
Dixon, Donald


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Dobson, Frank


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Dormand, Jack


Barnett, Guy
Douglas, Dick


Barron, Kevin
Dubs, Alfred


Beckett, Mrs Margaret
Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.


Bell, Stuart
Eadie, Alex


Benn, Tony
Eastham, Ken


Bennett, A. (Dent'n &amp; Red'sh)
Evans, John (St. Helens N)


Bermingham, Gerald
Ewing, Harry


Bidwell, Sydney
Fatchett, Derek


Blair, Anthony
Field, Frank (Birkenhead)


Boyes, Roland
Fisher, Mark


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Flannery, Martin


Brown, N. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne E)
Foster, Derek


Brown, R. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne N)
Foulkes, George


Bruce, Malcolm
Fraser, J. (Norwood)


Buchan, Norman
Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald


Caborn, Richard
Garrett, W. E.


Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd &amp; M)
George, Bruce


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John


Canavan, Dennis
Godman, Dr Norman


Carlile, Alexander (Montg'y)
Golding, John


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Hamilton, James (M'well N)


Clarke, Thomas
Hancock, Mr. Michael


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Hardy, Peter


Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S.)
Harman, Ms Harriet


Cohen, Harry
Harrison, Rt Hon Walter


Conlan, Bernard
Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith


Cook, Frank (Stockton North)
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy


Corbett, Robin
Heffer, Eric S.


Corbyn, Jeremy
Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)


Cowans, Harry
Holland, Stuart (Vauxhall)


Cox, Thomas (Tooting)
Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)


Craigen, J. M.
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)


Cunningham, Dr John
Hughes, Simon (Southwark)


Dalyell, Tam
Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)


Davies, Ronald (Caerphilly)
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald






Kennedy, Charles
Prescott, John


Kilroy-Silk, Robert
Redmond, M.


Lambie, David
Rees, Rt Hon M, (Leeds S)


Lamond, James
Richardson, Ms Jo


Lead bitter, Ted
Roberts, Allan (Bootle)


Leighton, Ronald
Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)


Lewis, Terence (Worsley)
Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)


Litherland, Robert
Rogers, Allan


Lloyd, Tony (Stratford)
Rooker, J. W.


Lofthouse, Geoffrey
Ross, Ernest (Dundee W)


McCartney, Hugh
Rowlands, Ted


McDonald, Dr Oonagh
Sheerman, Barry


McGuire, Michael
Sheldon, Rt Hon R.


McKay, Allen (Penistone)
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Mackenzie, Rt Hon Gregor
Short, Ms Clare (Ladywood)


Maclennan, Robert
Silkin, Rt Hon J,


McWilliam, John
Skinner, Dennis


Madden, Max
Smith, C.(Isl'ton S &amp; F'bury)


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Snape, Peter


Maynard, Miss Joan
Soley, Clive


Michie, William
Spearing, Nigel


Mikardo, Ian
Straw, Jack


Millan, Rt Hon Bruce
Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)


Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)
Thompson, J. (Wansbeck)


Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)
Thorne, Stan (Preston)


Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Tinn, James


Nellist, David
Torney, Tom


Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon
Wainwright, R.


O'Brien, William
Warden, Gareth (Gower)


Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Wareing, Robert


Park, George
Welsh, Michael


Parry, Robert
Wigley, Dafydd


Patchett, Terry
Winnick, David


Pavitt, Laurie
Woodall, Alec


Pendry, Tom



Penhaligon, David
Tellers for the Ayes:


Pike, Peter
Mr. John Cartwright and Mr. A. J. Beith.


Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)



NOES


Adley, Robert
Butcher, John


Aitken, Jonathan
Butterfill, John


Alexander, Richard
Carlisle, John (N Luton)


Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)


Amess, David
Carttiss, Michael


Ancram, Michael
Cash, William


Ashby, David
Chalker, Mrs Lynda


Aspinwall, Jack
Channon, Rt Hon Paul


Atkins, Rt Hon Sir H,
Chapman, Sydney


Atkins, Robert (South Ribble)
Chope, Christopher


Atkinson, David (B'm'th E)
Churchill, W. S.


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Vall'y)
Clark, Hon A. (Plym'th S'n)


Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)
Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)


Batiste, Spencer
Cockeram, Eric


Bendall, Vivian
Colvin, Michael


Berry, Sir Anthony
Conway, Derek


Best, Keith
Cope, John


Bevan, David Gilroy
Cranborne, Viscount


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Critchley, Julian


Biggs-Davison, Sir John
Crouch, David


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Currie, Mrs Edwina


Body, Richard
Dicks, Terry


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Dorrell, Stephen


Bottomley, Peter
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Dover, Den


Bowden, A. (Brighton K'to'n)
du Cann, Rt Hon Edward


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Durant, Tony


Boyson, Dr Rhodes
Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Eggar, Tim


Bright, Graham
Emery, Sir Peter


Brinton, Tim
Fallon, Michael


Brooke, Hon Peter
Farr, Sir John


Brown, M. (Brigg &amp; Cl'thpes)
Favell, Anthony


Browne, John
Fenner, Mrs Peggy


Bruinvels, Peter
Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey


Bryan, Sir Paul
Fookes, Miss Janet


Buck, Sir Antony
Forman, Nigel


Budgen, Nick
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Bulmer, Esmond
Forth, Eric





Fowler, Rt Hon Norman
Lord, Michael


Fox, Marcus
Luce, Richard


Franks, Cecil
Lyell, Nicholas


Fraser, Peter (Angus East)
McCurley, Mrs Anna


Freeman, Roger
MacGregor, John


Fry, Peter
MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire)


Gale, Roger
MacKay, John (Argyll &amp; Bute)


Gardiner, George (Reigate)
Maclean, David John


Gardner, Sir Edward (Fylde)
McQuarrie, Albert


Glyn, Dr Alan
Madel, David


Goodhart, Sir Philip
Major, John


Goodlad, Alastair
Malins, Humfrey


Gorst, John
Malone, Gerald


Gow, Ian
Maples, John


Gower, Sir Raymond
Marland, Paul


Grant, Sir Anthony
Marlow, Antony


Greenway, Harry
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)


Gregory, Conal
Mates, Michael


Griffiths, E. (B'y St Edm'ds)
Maude, Hon Francis


Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)
Mawhinney, Dr Brian


Grist, Ian
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Grylls, Michael
Mayhew, Sir Patrick


Gummer, John Selwyn
Mellor, David


Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)
Merchant, Piers


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Miller, Hal (B'grove)


Hampson, Dr Keith
Mills, Iain (Meriden)


Hanley, Jeremy
Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon)


Hannam,John
Miscampbell, Norman


Harris, David
Mitchell, David (NW Hants)


Harvey, Robert
Moate, Roger


Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael
Monro, Sir Hector


Hawkins, C. (High Peak)
Montgomery, Fergus


Hawkins, Sir Paul (SW N'folk)
Moore, John


Hawksley, Warren
Mudd, David


Hayes, J.
Murphy, Christopher


Hayhoe, Barney
Neale, Gerrard


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Needham, Richard


Henderson, Barry
Nelson, Anthony


Hill, James
Neubert, Michael


Hind, Kenneth
Nicholls, Patrick


Hirst, Michael
Normanton, Tom


Holland, Sir Philip (Gedling)
Norris, Steven


Holt, Richard
Onslow, Cranley


Hooson, Tom
Oppenheim, Phillip


Hordern, Peter
Osborn, Sir John


Howard, Michael
Ottaway, Richard


Howarth, Alan (Stratf'd-on-A)
Page, Sir John (Harrow W)


Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)
Page, Richard (Herts SW)


Howell, Ralph (N Norfolk)
Patten, John (Oxford)


Hubbard-Miles, Peter
Pattie, Geoffrey


Hunt, David (Wirral)
Pawsey, James


Hunter, Andrew
Percival, Rt Hon Sir Ian


Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas
Pollock, Alexander


Irving, Charles
Porter, Barry


Jackson, Robert
Powell, William (Corby)


Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick
Powley, John


Jessel, Toby
Proctor, K. Harvey


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Raffan, Keith


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Renton, Tim


Jones, Robert (W Herts)
Rhodes James, Robert


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine
Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas


Kershaw, Sir Anthony
Ridsdale, Sir Julian


Key, Robert
Rifkind, Malcolm


King, Roger (B'ham N'field)
Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)


Knight, Gregory (Derby N)
Robinson, Mark (N'port W)


Knight, Mrs Jill (Edgbaston)
Roe, Mrs Marion


Lamont, Norman
Rost, Peter


Lang, Ian
Rumbold, Mrs Angela


Latham, Michael
Ryder, Richard


Lawler, Geoffrey
Sackville, Hon Thomas


Lawrence, Ivan
Sainsbury, Hon Timothy


Lee, John (Pendle)
Sayeed, Jonathan


Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Shelton, William (Streatham)


Lewis, Sir Kenneth (Stamf'd)
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Lightbown, David
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)


Lilley, Peter
Shersby, Michael


Lloyd, Ian (Havant)
Silvester, Fred


Lloyd, Peter, (Fareham)
Sims, Roger






Skeet, T. H. H.
Trotter, Neville


Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)
Twinn, Dr Ian


Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)
van Straubenzee, Sir W.


Speller, Tony
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Spencer, Derek
Viggers, Peter


Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)
Waddington, David


Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Squire, Robin
Waldegrave, Hon William


Stanbrook, Ivor
Walden, George


Steen, Anthony
Walker, Rt Hon P. (W'cester)


Stern, Michael
Ward, John


Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)
Wardle, C. (Bexhill)


Stevens, Martin (Fulham)
Warren, Kenneth


Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)
Watson, John


Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)
Watts, John


Stewart, Ian (N Hertf'dshire)
Wells, Bowen (Hertford)


Stradling Thomas, J.
Wheeler, John


Sumberg, David
Whitfield, John


Tapsell, Peter
Whitney, Raymond


Taylor, John (Solihull)
Wiggin, Jerry


Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)
Wilkinson, John


Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman
Wolfson, Mark


Temple-Morris, Peter
Wood, Timothy


Thomas, Rt Hon Peter
Woodcock, Michael


Thompson, Donald (Calder V)
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)
Younger, Rt Hon George


Thorne, Neil (Ilford S)



Thornton, Malcolm
Tellers for the Noes:


Thurnham, Peter
Mr. Robert Boscawen and Mr. Douglas Hogg.


Townend, John (Bridlington)



Trippier. David

Question accordingly negatived

Amendment (i) proposed to Lords amendment No. 9, in line 26, at end add—
'(5A) The Secretary of State shall notify the relevant Council of his decision in respect of any expenditure within one month of that expenditure being submitted for his approval.'.—[Mr. Beith.]

Question put, That amendment (i) to the Lords amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 155, Noes 294.

Division No. 457]
[12.01 am


AYES


Alton, David
Corbett, Robin


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Corbyn, Jeremy


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Cowans, Harry


Ashton, Joe
Cox, Thomas (Tooting)


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Craigen, J. M.


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Cunliffe, Lawrence


Barnett, Guy
Cunningham, Dr John


Barron, Kevin
Dalyell, Tam


Beckett, Mrs Margaret
Davies, Ronald (Caerphilly)


Bell, Stuart
Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'ge H'l)


Benn, Tony
Deakins, Eric


Bennett, A. (Dent'n &amp; Red'sh)
Dewar, Donald


Bermingham, Gerald
Dixon, Donald


Bidwell, Sydney
Dobson, Frank


Blair, Anthony
Dormand, Jack


Boyes, Roland
Douglas, Dick


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Dubs, Alfred


Brown, N. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne E)
Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.


Brown, R. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne N)
Eadie, Alex


Bruce, Malcolm
Eastham, Ken


Buchan, Norman
Evans, John (St. Helens N)


Caborn, Richard
Ewing, Harry


Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd &amp; M)
Fatchett, Derek


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Field, Frank (Birkenhead)


Canavan, Dennis
Fisher, Mark


Carlile, Alexander (Montg'y)
Flannery, Martin


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Foster, Derek


Clarke, Thomas
Foulkes, George


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Fraser, J. (Norwood)


Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S.)
Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald


Cohen, Harry
Garrett, W. E.


Conlan, Bernard
George, Bruce


Cook, Frank (Stockton North)80
Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John





Godman, Dr Norman
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Golding, John
Owen, Rt Hon Dr David


Hamilton, James (M'well N)
Park, George


Hancock, Mr. Michael
Parry, Robert


Hardy, Peter
Patchett, Terry


Harman, Ms Harriet
Pavitt, Laurie


Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
Pendry, Tom


Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith
Penhaligon, David


Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Pike, Peter


Heffer, Eric S.
Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)


Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)
Prescott, John


Holland, Stuart (Vauxhall)
Rees, Rt Hon M. (Leeds S)


Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)
Richardson, Ms Jo


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Roberts, Allan (Bootle)


Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)
Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)


Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)
Rogers, Allan


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Rooker, J. W.


Kennedy, Charles
Ross, Ernest (Dundee W)


Kilroy-Silk, Robert
Rowlands, Ted


Lambie, David
Sheerman, Barry


Lamond, James
Sheldon, Rt Hon R.


Leadbitter, Ted
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Leighton, Ronald
Short, Ms Clare (Ladywood)


Lewis, Terence (Worsley)
Silkin, Rt Hon J.


Litherland, Robert
Skinner, Dennis


Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Smith, C.(Isl'ton S &amp; F'bury)


Lofthouse, Geoffrey
Snape, Peter


McCartney, Hugh
Soley, Clive


McDonald, Dr Oonagh
Spearing, Nigel


McGuire, Michael
Straw, Jack


McKay, Allen (Penistone)
Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)


Mackenzie, Rt Hon Gregor
Thompson, J. (Wansbeck)


Maclennan, Robert
Tinn, James


McWilliam, John
Torney, Tom


Madden, Max
Wainwright, R.


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Maynard, Miss Joan
Wareing, Robert


Michie, William
Welsh, Michael


Mikardo, Ian
Wigley, Dafydd


Millan, Rt Hon Bruce
Winnick, David


Miller, DrM. S. (E Kilbride)
Woodall, Alec


Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)



Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Tellers for the Ayes:.


Nellist, David
Mr. John Cartwright and Mr. A. J. Beith.


Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon



O'Brien, William





NOES


Adley, Robert
Bright, Graham


Aitken, Jonathan
Brinton, Tim


Alexander, Richard
Brooke, Hon Peter


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Brown, M. (Brigg &amp; Cl'thpes)


Amess, David
Browne, John


Ancram, Michael
Bruinvels, Peter


Ashby, David
Bryan, Sir Paul


Aspinwall, Jack
Buck, Sir Antony


Atkins, Rt Hon Sir H.
Budgen, Nick


Atkins, Robert (South Ribble)
Bulmer, Esmond


Atkinson, David (B'm'th E)
Butcher, John


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Vall'y)
Butterfill, John


Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)
Carlisle, John (N Luton)


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)


Batiste, Spencer
Carttiss, Michael


Bendall, Vivian
Cash, William


Berry, Sir Anthony
Chalker, Mrs Lynda


Best, Keith
Channon, Rt Hon Paul


Bevan, David Gilroy
Chapman, Sydney


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Chope, Christopher


Biggs-Davison, Sir John
Churchill, W. S.


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Clark, Hon A. (Plym'th S'n)


Body, Richard
Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Cockeram, Eric


Bottomley, Peter
Conway, Derek


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Cope, John


Bowden, A. (Brighton K'to'n)
Cranborne, Viscount


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Critchley, Julian


Boyson, Dr Rhodes
Crouch, David


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Currie, Mrs Edwina






Dicks, Terry
Key, Robert


Dorrell, Stephen
King, Roger (B'ham N'field)


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.
Knight, Gregory (Derby N)


Dover, Den
Knight, Mrs Jill (Edgbaston)


du Cann, Rt Hon Edward
Lamont, Norman


Durant, Tony
Lang, Ian


Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)
Latham, Michael


Eggar, Tim
Lawler, Geoffrey


Emery, Sir Peter
Lawrence, Ivan


Fallon, Michael
Lee, John (Pendle)


Farr, Sir John
Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)


Favell, Anthony
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark


Fenner, Mrs Peggy
Lewis, Sir Kenneth (Stamf'd)


Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey
Lightbown, David


Fookes, Miss Janet
Lilley, Peter


Forman, Nigel
Lloyd, Ian (Havant)


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Lloyd, Peter, (Fareham)


Forth, Eric
Lord, Michael


Fowler, Rt Hon Norman
Luce, Richard


Fox, Marcus
Lyell, Nicholas


Franks, Cecil
McCurley, Mrs Anna


Fraser, Peter (Angus East)
MacGregor, John


Freeman, Roger
MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire)


Fry, Peter
MacKay, John (Argyll &amp; Bute)


Gale, Roger
Maclean, David John


Gardiner, George (Reigate)
McQuarrie, Albert


Glyn, Dr Alan
Madel, David


Goodhart, Sir Philip
Major, John


Goodlad, Alastair
Malins, Humfrey


Gorst, John
Malone, Gerald


Gow, Ian
Maples, John


Gower, Sir Raymond
Marland, Paul


Grant, Sir Anthony
Marlow, Antony


Greenway, Harry
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)


Gregory, Conal
Mates, Michael


Griffiths, E. (B'y St Edm'ds)
Maude, Hon Francis


Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)
Mawhinney, Dr Brian


Grist, Ian
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Grylls, Michael
Mayhew, Sir Patrick


Gummer, John Selwyn
Mellor, David


Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)
Merchant, Piers


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Miller, Hal (B'grove)


Hampson, Dr Keith
Mills, Iain (Meriden)


Hanley, Jeremy
Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon)


Hannam, John
Miscampbell, Norman


Harris, David
Mitchell, David (NW Hants)


Harvey, Robert
Moate, Roger


Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael
Monro, Sir Hector


Hawkins, C. (High Peak)
Montgomery, Fergus


Hawkins, Sir Paul (SW N'folk)
Moore, John


Hawksley, Warren
Mudd, David


Hayes, J.
Murphy, Christopher


Hayhoe, Barney
Neale, Gerrard


Heath coat-Amory, David
Needham, Richard


Heddle, John
Nelson, Anthony


Henderson, Barry
Nicholls, Patrick


Hill, James
Normanton, Tom


Hind, Kenneth
Norris, Steven


Hirst, Michael
Onslow, Cranley


Holland, Sir Philip (Gedling)
Oppenheim, Phillip


Holt, Richard
Osborn, Sir John


Hooson, Tom
Ottaway, Richard


Hordern, Peter
Page, Sir John (Harrow W)


Howard, Michael
Page, Richard (Herts SW)


Howarth, Alan (Stratf'd-on-A)
Patten, John (Oxford)


Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)
Pattie, Geoffrey


Howell, Ralph (N Norfolk)
Pawsey, James


Hubbard-Miles, Peter
Percival, Rt Hon Sir Ian


Hunt, David (Wirral)
Pollock, Alexander


Hunter, Andrew
Porter, Barry


Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas
Powell, William (Corby)


Irving, Charles
Powley, John


Jackson, Robert
Proctor, K. Harvey


Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick
Raffan, Keith


Jessel, Toby
Ronton, Tim


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Rhodes James, Robert


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Jones, Robert (W Herts)
Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Ridsdale, Sir Julian


Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine
Rifkind, Malcolm





Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)
Temple-Morris, Peter


Robinson, Mark (N'port W)
Thomas, Rt Hon Peter


Roe, Mrs Marion
Thompson, Donald (Calder V)


Rost, Peter
Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)


Rumbold, Mrs Angela
Thorne, Neil (Ilford S)


Ryder, Richard
Thornton, Malcolm


Sackville, Hon Thomas
Thurnham, Peter


Sainsbury, Hon Timothy
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Sayeed, Jonathan
Trippier, David


Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)
Trotter, Neville


Shelton, William (Streatham)
Twinn, Dr Ian


Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
van Straubenzee, Sir W.


Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Shersby, Michael
Viggers, Peter


Silvester, Fred
Waddington, David


Sims, Roger
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Skeet, T. H. H.
Waldegrave, Hon William


Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)
Walden, George


Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)
Ward, John


Speller, Tony
Wardle, C. (Bexhill)


Spencer, Derek
Warren, Kenneth


Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)
Watson, John


Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)
Watts, John


Squire, Robin
Wells, Bowen (Hertford)


Stanbrook, Ivor
Wheeler, John


Steen, Anthony
Whitfield, John


Stern, Michael
Whitney, Raymond


Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)
Wiggin, Jerry


Stevens, Martin (Fulham)
Wilkinson, John


Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)
Wolfson, Mark


Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)
Wood, Timothy


Stewart, Ian (N Hertf'dshire)
Woodcock, Michael


Stradling Thomas, J.
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Sumberg, David
Younger, Rt Hon George


Tapsell, Peter



Taylor, John (Solihull)
Tellers for the Noes:


Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)
Mr. Michael Neubert and Mr. Douglas Hogg.


Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

Question accordingly negatived

Question put, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment:—

The House divided: Ayes 293, Noes 157.

Division No 458]
[12.12 am


AYES


 Adley, Robert
Brooke, Hon Peter


Aitken, Jonathan
Brown, M. (Brigg &amp; Cl'thpes)


Alexander, Richard
Browne, John


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Bruinvels, Peter


Amess, David
Bryan, Sir Paul


Ancram, Michael
Buck, Sir Antony


Ashby, David
Budgen, Nick


Aspinwall, Jack
Bulmer, Esmond


Atkins, Rt Hon Sir H.
Butcher, John


Atkins, Robert (South Ribble)
Butterfill, John


Atkinson, David (B'm'th E)
Carlisle, John (N Luton)


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Vall'y)
Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)


Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)
Carttiss, Michael


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Cash, William


Batiste, Spencer
Chalker, Mrs Lynda


Bendall, Vivian
Channon, Rt Hon Paul


Berry, Sir Anthony
Chapman, Sydney


Best, Keith
Chope, Christopher


Bevan, David Gilroy
Churchill, W. S.


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Clark, Hon A. (Plym'th S'n)


Biggs-Davison, Sir John
Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)


Body, Richard
Cockeram, Eric


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Colvin, Michael


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Conway, Derek


Bottomley, Peter
Cope, John


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Cranborne, Viscount


Bowden, A. (Brighton K'to'n)
Critchley, Julian


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Crouch, David


Boyson, Dr Rhodes
Currie, Mrs Edwina


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Dicks, Terry


Bright, Graham
Dorrell, Stephen


Brinton, Tim
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.






Dover, Den
Lang, Ian


du Cann, Rt Hon Edward
Latham, Michael


Durant, Tony
Lawler, Geoffrey


Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)
Lawrence, Ivan


Eggar, Tim
Lee, John (Pendle)


Emery, Sir Peter
Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)


Fallon, Michael
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark


Farr, Sir John
Lewis, Sir Kenneth (Stamf'd)


Favell, Anthony
Lightbown, David


Fenner, Mrs Peggy
Lilley, Peter


Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey
Lloyd, Ian (Havant)


Fookes, Miss Janet
Lloyd, Peter, (Fareham)


Forman, Nigel
Lord, Michael


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Luce, Richard


Forth, Eric
Lyell, Nicholas


Fowler, Rt Hon Norman
McCurley, Mrs Anna


Fox, Marcus
MacGregor, John


Franks, Cecil
MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire)


Fraser, Peter (Angus East)
MacKay, John (Argyll &amp; Bute)


Freeman, Roger
Maclean, David John


Fry, Peter
McQuarrie, Albert


Gale, Roger
Madel, David


Gardiner, George (Reigate)
Malins, Humfrey


Glyn, Dr Alan
Malone, Gerald


Goodhart, Sir Philip
Maples, John


Goodlad, Alastair
Marland, Paul


Gorst, John
Marlow, Antony


Gow, Ian
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)


Gower, Sir Raymond
Mates, Michael


Grant, Sir Anthony
Maude, Hon Francis


Greenway, Harry
Mawhinney, Dr Brian


Gregory, Conal
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Griffiths, E. (B'y St Edm'ds)
Mayhew, Sir Patrick


Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)
Mellor, David


Grist, Ian
Merchant, Piers


Grylls, Michael
Miller, Hal (B'grove)


Gummer, John Selwyn
Mills, Iain (Meriden)


Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)
Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon)


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Miscampbell, Norman


Hampson, Dr Keith
Mitchell, David (NW Hants)


Hanley, Jeremy
Moate, Roger


Hannam,John
Monro, Sir Hector


Harris, David
Montgomery, Fergus


Harvey, Robert
Moore, John


Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael
Mudd, David


Hawkins, C. (High Peak)
Murphy, Christopher


Hawkins, Sir Paul (SW N'folk)
Neale, Gerrard


Hawksley, Warren
Needham, Richard


Hayes, J.
Nelson, Anthony


Hayhoe, Barney
Neubert, Michael


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Nicholls, Patrick


Henderson, Barry
Normanton, Tom


Hill, James
Norris, Steven


Hind, Kenneth
Onslow, Cranley


Hirst, Michael
Oppenheim, Phillip


Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)
Osborn, Sir John


Holland, Sir Philip (Gedling)
Ottaway, Richard


Holt, Richard
Page, Sir John (Harrow W)


Hooson, Tom
Page, Richard (Herts SW)


Hordern, Peter
Patten, John (Oxford)


Howard, Michael
Pattie, Geoffrey


Howarth, Alan (Stratf'd-on-A)
Pawsey, James


Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)
Percival, Rt Hon Sir Ian


Howell, Ralph (N Norfolk)
Pollock, Alexander


Hubbard-Miles, Peter
Porter, Barry


Hunter, Andrew
Powell, William (Corby)


Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas
Powley, John


Irving, Charles
Proctor, K. Harvey


Jackson, Robert
Raffan, Keith


Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick
Renton, Tim


Jessel, Toby
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Ridsdale, Sir Julian


Jones, Robert (W Herts)
Rifkind, Malcolm


Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine
Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)


Key, Robert
Robinson, Mark (N'port W)


King, Roger (B'ham N'field)
Roe, Mrs Marion


Knight, Gregory (Derby N)
Rost, Peter


Knight, Mrs Jill (Edgbaston)
Rumbold, Mrs Angela


Lamont, Norman
Ryder, Richard





Sackville, Hon Thomas
Thorne, Neil (Ilford S)


Sainsbury, Hon Timothy
Thornton, Malcolm


Sayeed, Jonathan
Thurnham, Peter


Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Shelton, William (Streatham)
Trippier, David


Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Trotter, Neville


Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)
Twinn, Dr Ian


Shersby, Michael
van Straubenzee, Sir W.


Silvester, Fred
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Sims, Roger
Viggers, Peter


Skeet, T. H. H.
Waddington, David


Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)
Waldegrave, Hon William


Speller, Tony
Walden, George


Spencer, Derek
Waller, Gary


Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)
Ward, John


Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)
Wardle, C. (Bexhill)


Squire, Robin
Warren, Kenneth


Stanbrook, Ivor
Watson, John


Steen, Anthony
Watts, John


Stern, Michael
Wells, Bowen (Hertford)


Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)
Wheeler, John


Stevens, Martin (Fulham)
Whitfield, John


Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)
Whitney, Raymond


Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)
Wiggin, Jerry


Stewart, Ian (N Hertf'dshire)
Wilkinson, John


Stradling Thomas, J.
Wolfson, Mark


Sumberg, David
Wood, Timothy


Tapsell, Peter
Woodcock, Michael


Taylor, John (Solihull)
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)
Younger, Rt Hon George


Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman



Temple-Morris, Peter
Tellers for the Ayes:


Thomas, Rt Hon Peter
Mr. John Major and Mr. David Hunt 


Thompson, Donald (Calder V)




Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)



NOES


Alton, David
Dalyell, Tam


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Davies, Ronald (Caerphilly)


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'ge H'l)


Ashton, Joe
Deakins, Eric


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Dewar, Donald


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Dixon, Donald


Barnett, Guy
Dobson, Frank


Barron, Kevin
Dormand, Jack


Beckett, Mrs Margaret
Douglas, Dick


Beith, A. J.
Dubs, Alfred


Bell, Stuart
Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.


Benn, Tony
Eadie, Alex


Bennett, A. (Dent'n &amp; Red'sh)
Eastham, Ken


Bermingham, Gerald
Evans, John (St. Helens N)


Bidwell, Sydney
Ewing, Harry


Blair, Anthony
Fatchett, Derek


Boyes, Roland
Field, Frank (Birkenhead)


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Fisher, Mark


Brown, N. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne E)
Flannery, Martin


Brown, R. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne N)
Foster, Derek


Bruce, Malcolm
Foulkes, George


Buchan, Norman
Fraser, J. (Norwood)


Caborn, Richard
Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald


Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd &amp; M)
Garrett, W. E.


Campbell-Savours, Dale
George, Bruce


Canavan, Dennis
Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John


Carlile, Alexander (Montg'y)
Godman, Dr Norman


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Golding, John


Cartwright, John
Hamilton, James (M'well N)


Clarke, Thomas
Hancock, Mr. Michael


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Hardy, Peter


Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S.)
Harman, Ms Harriet


Cohen, Harry
Harrison, Rt Hon Walter


Conlan, Bernard
Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith


Cook, Frank (Stockton North)
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy


Corbett, Robin
Heffer, Eric S.


Corbyn, Jeremy
Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)


Cowans, Harry
Holland, Stuart (Vauxhall)


Cox, Thomas (Tooting)
Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)


Craigen, J. M.
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)


Cunningham, Dr John
Hughes, Simon (Southwark)






Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)
Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)


Kennedy, Charles
Nellist, David


Kilroy-Silk, Robert
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


Lambie, David
O'Brien, William


Lamond, James
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Leadbitter, Ted
Owen, Rt Hon Dr David


Leighton, Ronald
Park, George


Lewis, Terence (Worsley)
Parry, Robert


Litherland, Robert
Patchett, Terry


Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Pavitt, Laurie


Lofthouse, Geoffrey
Pendry, Tom


McCartney, Hugh
Penhaligon, David


McDonald, Dr Oonagh
Pike, Peter


McGuire, Michael
Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)


Mackenzie, Rt Hon Gregor
Prescott, John


Maclennan, Robert
Redmond, M.


Madden, Max
Rees, Rt Hon M. (Leeds S)


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Richardson, Ms Jo


Maynard, Miss Joan
Roberts, Allan (Bootle)


Meacher, Michael
Robertson, George


Michie, William
Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)


Mikardo, Ian
Rogers, Allan


Millan, Rt Hon Bruce
Rooker, J. W.


Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)
Ross, Ernest (Dundee W)

". — (1) Neither the Greater London Council nor a metro-politan county council shall after the passing of the Act dispose of any land except with the consent of the Secretary of State.


5
(2) Any consent under this section may be given either in respect of a particular disposal or in respect of disposals of any class or description and either unconditionally or subject to conditions.


10
(3) This section has effect notwithstanding anything in section 123 of the principal Act (general power to dispose of land) or in any other enactment; and the consent required by this section shall be in addition to any consent required by subsection (2) of that section or by any other enactment.



(4) It is hereby declared that section 128(2) of the principal


15
Act (protection of purchasers etc.) applies to any disposal of land to which this section applies.



(5) In this section references to disposing of land include references to—



(a) granting of any interest in land;


20
(b) entering into a contract to dispose of land or to grant or dispose of any such interest; and



(c) granting an option to acquire any land or any such interest;


25
and references in this subsection to an interest in land include references to any easement, right or charge in, to or over land to a licence to occupy land."—[Mr. Patrick Jenkin.]

Read a Second time.

Mr. John Fraser: I beg to move amendment (a) to the proposed Lords amendment, in line 8, at end insert—
'(2A) Before exercising his power under this section to grant or refuse consent, the Secretary of State shall specify the matters he is to take into consideration in granting or refusing his consent; and any consent or refusal of consent by the Secretary of State under this section shall be accompanied by reasons for his decision.'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take the following: amendment (d), in line 4, at end insert:
'and such consent shall not unreasonably be withheld, and shall in any event be extended to the disposal of such land a clear intention to dispose of which was evident prior to 13th July 1984.'.

Question accordingly agreed to.

New Clause

CONTROL OF DISPOSALS OF LAND

Lords amendment: No. 10, after clause 8, and after the clause last inserted, insert the following new clause:—

Amendment (e), in line 8, at end insert:
'and any consent or refusal of consent by the Secretary of State under this section shall be accompanied by the reasons for his decision. '

Amendment (f), in line 12, leave out 'be in addition to' and insert 'replace'.

Amendment (g), in line 26, at end, add—
'() Any costs or charges following upon the council in question, or upon the person to whom the land is to be disposed, arising as a result of—
(a) delay by the Secretary of State in granting consent under this section, or
(b) refusal by the Secretary of State to grant consent under this section, or
(c) any conditions imposed by the Secretary of State in granting consent under this section
;
shall be re-imbursed by the Secretary of State.'.

Lords amendment No. 11, after clause 8, insert the following new clause—Control of contracts—

5
". — (1) Except with the consent of the Secretary of State neither the Greater London Council nor a metropolitan county council shall after the passing of this Act enter into a contract which (with or without other matters) provides for—



(a) the carrying out by or for the council of building or engineering works in respect of which the consideration exceeds £250,000;


10
(b) the carrying out by or for the council of maintenance works in respect of which the consideration exceeds £100,000;



(c) the supply by or to the council of goods in respect of which the consideration exceeds £100,000;


15
(d) the provision by or to the council of administrative, - professional or technical services in respect of which the consideration exceeds £100,000; or


20
(e) the use by another person of any vehicle, plant or apparatus of the council, or the use by the council of any vehicle, plant or apparatus of another person, in respect of which the consideration exceeds £100,000.



(2) Where the consideration or any of the consideration. under a contract is not in money, the limits specified in subsection (1) above shall apply to the value of the consideration; and any necessary apportionment shall be made of consideration which is


25
referable to two or more of the matters mentioned in that subsection or to any of them and other matters.


30
(3) For the purpose of determining whether a limit specified in subsection (1) above is exceeded in the case of any contract, there shall be taken into account the consideration under any other contract or contracts entered into by the council in the previous twelve months (but not earlier than the passing of this Act) so far as relating, in a case within paragraph (a) or (b) of that subsection, to works of the same or a similar description to be carried out on the same or adjacent land or, in a case within paragraph (c), (d) or (e) of that subsection, to goods, services, vehicles, plant or apparatus of the same or a similar description.


35


40
(4) Any consent under this section may be given either in respect of a particular contract or in respect of contracts of any case or description and either unconditionally or subject to conditions.


45
(5) A contract shall not be void by reason only that it has been entered into a contravention of this section and a person entering into a contract with a council to which this section applies shall not be concerned to enquire whether any consent required by this section has been given or complied with.


50
(6) In this section— "building or engineering works" includes any work involved in the laying out of land, the improvement of land or buildings, the construction or improvement of a highway and any work of demolition;



"maintenance works" includes work for the maintenance or repair of land, buildings or highways, the gritting of a highway and the clearing of snow from a highway."

And the following amendments to the Lords amendment:

(e), in line 8, leave out '£250,000' and insert `£1,000,000'.

(f), in line 11, leave out '£100,000' and insert `£000,000'.

(g), in line 13, leave out '£100,000' and insert '£500,000'.

(h), in line 16, leave out '£100,000' and insert `£500,000'.

(i), in line 20, leave out '£100,000', and insert `£500,000'.

(j), in line 40, at end insert
`and such consent shall not unreasonably be withheld, and shall in any event be extended to such contracts a clear intention to enter into which was evident prior to 13th July 1984.'.

(k), in line 40, at end insert
`and any consent or refusal of consent by the Secretary of State under this section shall be accompanied by the reasons for his decision.'.

(b), in line 40, at end insert—

`(4A) Before granting or refusing his consent under this section, the Secretary of State shall consult bodies representative of staff employed by the Greater London Council and the metropolitan county councils. '

(c), in line 40, at end insert—
'(4B) Before exercising his power under this section to grant or refuse consent, the Secretary of State shall specify the matters he is to take into consideration in granting or refusing his consent; and any consent or refusal of consent by the Secretary of State under this section shall be accompanied by reasons for his decision'.

(1), in line 53, at end add—
'() Nothing in this section shall apply to the Greater London Council when acting as an education authority for the Inner London area pursuant to section 30 of the London Government Act 1963. '.

(m), in line 53, at end, add—
'(7) Any costs or charges falling upon the council in question, or upon the person with whom the contract was to be placed, arising as a result of

(a) delay by the Secretary of State in granting consent under this section, or
(b) refusal by the Secretary of State to grant consent under this section, or
(c) any conditions imposed by the Secretary of State in granting consent under this section



shall be reimbursed by the Secretary of State.'.

Mr. Fraser: If the struggle between the Department of the Environment and the metropolitan counties is a gladiatorial one, the Secretary of State has chosen to use nets and toils in the way in which he intends to control the activities of the metropolitan counties. The Secretary of State is introducing controls over land sales which are obsessive, splenetic and completely unnecessary. I do not know why the right hon. Gentleman bothered to introduce those measures, unless he simply wanted to take it out on local authorities because he suffered a defeat in the other place over the election of councillors to the metropolitan counties.
Under section 123 of the Local Government Act 1972, local authorities may dispose of land only for the best consideration that can be reasonably obtained. If they attempt to dispose of land in any other way, they would require the consent of the Secretary of State. As the law stands, it is impossible for any local authority to make a gift of land or to sell it under value to any other local authority or any other body. If any councillor or council officer attempts to do so, he is liable to a surcharge. Caution is already shown by valuers and council officers in disposing of land, lest the disposal is under value, which might attract the attention of the district valuer. Many local authorities possess far too little imagination in disposing of their land, and that is why sometimes land remains vacant and lost to the public purse.
The new controls are not just over the transfer of freehold land. They would cover, for instance, the selling and leasing of industrial land. I understand that the GLC and the metropolitan counties possess a number of sites which they would want to lease for a short period, perhaps even on a licence, for industrial regeneration to ensure that the land does not lie vacant and that wherever possible it is available to provide jobs. Even the arrangement of licensing land for a short period is caught by the new clause.
I shall give an example of the way in which the GLC is disposing of land. Those disposals will be caught by the new clause. The GLC is selling 36 sites of industrial property, mainly to those who occupy them. The GLC—this point should please the Poujadists on the Tory Benches — is selling 34 freehold reversions to shopkeepers. I should have thought that nothing would have pleased the Government more than to see the shopkeeper exercising the same kind of rights that the householder exercises under the right-to-buy provisions.
The extraordinary thing about the legislation is that it makes illegal the jewel in the Government's crown. Under this legislation the Secretary of State will have to grant general consent to enable a local authority to sell a house under the Housing Act 1980 because, unless he gives general consent, he will prevent the operation of that Act. In other cases, the position becomes plainly ludicrous—for example, one of the Yorkshire authorities disposes of land by way of 500 grazing rights per year. That means that the cows and sheep of Yorkshire will have to wait for the Yorkshire authorities to go to the Department of the Environment to seek consent in letting grazing rights. I could give many other examples.
These provisions are not needed. The disposal of land is adequately covered by existing law. The useful and economic disposal of land will be delayed or even aborted because purchasers, lessees or licensees of land will not

be able to hang around. The only reason why the Secretary of State is introducing this measure is to punish local authorities because of the loss of certain clauses in the other place. The Secretary of State will send his civil servants crawling over the transactions of the GLC and the metropolitan county councils rather like the South American ants that invade a body before it has even become a carcase. This whole idea is a crazy bureaucratic exercise.
12.30 am
Amendment (a) at least mitigates the idiotic, dilatory and unnecessary clauses by making the Secretary of State first set out the criteria upon which he intends to exercise his powers of control and, secondly, when he has exercised his powers of control he will be obliged to give reasons for the decision to which he has come. Perhaps that almost sums up in a few word the speeches which we are to hear from Liberal Members. I see the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) looking in my direction. The hon. Gentleman is doing for the reputation of speech-making what tower blocks did for the reputation of architecture. But I think that I have put in a few words what the opposition from both the minority parties amounts to.
The same arguments apply to the proposed controls of the Secretary of State over the granting of contracts. Looking through the list of contracts in respect of which he intends to take control from the Greater London council, we see that they involve perfectly acceptable works. Very few of them represent more than £100,000. Again it is quite unnecessary for the Secretary of State to take these powers, and there is no evidence of abuse.
My hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) tabled a series of questions recently to the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, each of which began by asking what knowledge the Secretary of State had of the number of contracts entered into and then continued in five different ways. The Minister replied that he had very little information. In fact, he had no information which justified this provision.
I give some examples of the types of contracts which will be delayed and controlled by the Secretary of State. There are security contracts for solid waste transfer stations. They will be controlled, as will transport contracts for civil amenity sites, emergency hire of transport for waste haulage, the provision of play areas at Burgess park and Finsbury park, and tar-paving contracts in parks generally. It is quite unnecessary to adopt these powers where the law is already adequate to control the way in which local authorities dispose of both their money and their property.
Disraeli once said that if a stranger had been told that the Leader of the House was Lord John Russell, he would have understood why the Egyptians worshipped insects. He could say the same today about the Secretary of State. The right hon. Gentleman is acting like a spider. He is spinning this malevolent and bureaucratic web around local
authorities, and the result of the new clauses, which we oppose, will be delay, cost and waste for the ratepayers —the very opposite of which he proposes to achieve.

Mr. Stuart Holland: If the Secretary of State intends to take away these powers front local authorities, perhaps it is appropriate to remind the House of an occasion on which his predecessor did precisely that. It was in my


constituency, and it concerned the Esso and Effra sites on each side of Vauxhall bridge. The Secretary of State chose to make a special development order to take from local authorities their rights to dispose of those sites as they saw fit.
In the debate in the House which ensued, which was on a negative order so that we had to exercise ourselves to oppose it, we argued that the Secretary of State did not know the local circumstances as well as the local councils which opposed this move, and that the Secretary of State should not have confidence in the developer on behalf of the property company concerned at that time, a certain Mr. Ronnie Lyons, whose previous track record was to go bankrupt owing his creditors some £54 million. We also argued that it was as clear as could be that it was possible, if not probable, that Mr. Ronnie Lyons would go bankrupt yet again.
At that time, the Secretary of State told right hon. and hon. Members that their fears were exaggerated and that if only they would pay attention to what he was about to say—and this Secretary of State is skilled in reminding us that he is about to say something—they would be reassured about the disposal of those sites.
The record shows that Mr. Ronnie Lyons has gone bankrupt yet again. The sites are not being developed. The haste has not got rid of the waste or of the failure to use those sites. The haste and the concern of this Government to come down from above to exercise what amount to authoritarian powers, riding roughshod over local councils, has resulted in further planning blight.
I now ask the Secretary of State for an assurance that in the case of the Coin street sites — where, recently, land disposal was made to a community development on behalf of the Association of Waterloo Groups for housing rather than office development—he will in no way seek to exercise retrospectively the powers in the Bill to take those sites away from the community. For the first time since the South Bank exhibition in 1951, housing will be restored to those sites, and that has been promised for 35 years.
In these two specific, concrete cases in my constituency we have evidence of the better judgment of local elected councils which are closer to the community, closer to the people and have better knowledge of commercial enterprises and prospects than Secretaries of State.
If the right hon. Gentleman wishes to avoid emulating his predecessor, I urge him seriously to reconsider the proposals from another place.

Mr. Simon Hughes: May I first seek your guidance, Mr. Deputy Speaker? You called a debate on amendment (a) to Lords amendment No. 10. Do you propose that this should be a comprehensive debate dealing with the other amendments to Lords amendment No. 10 and with Lords amendment No. 11 and the amendments thereto?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Yes, as I indicated we shall have a general debate on all the amendments on the selection list.

Mr. Hughes: My right hon. and hon. Friends have tabled some of the amendments that we are now discussing. In effect, they relate to the Secretary of State's planning powers. They come before the House against a background of increasing discontent over the Secretary of State's exercise of his existing planning powers.

Mr. Patrick Jenkin: I did not intend to intervene quite so early in the hon. Gentleman's speech, but I assure him that nothing in this clause or in any of the amendments has anything to do with my planning powers.

Mr. Hughes: Consent to disposals of land is as near to planning decisions as any decisions which the right hon. Gentleman is already empowered to make.
The hon. Member for Vauxhall (Mr. Holland) referred to the Coin street site, the large bulk of which is in his constituency and the smaller part of which is in mine. If that site is the subject of an application and there is a requirement to dispose of it to community groups for housing purposes, the Secretary of State will, if the amendment is passed, be able to refuse his consent to that disposal. That allows intervention in the decision-making powers of local authorities in respect of land, which is exactly similar to all the interventionist powers which the Secretary of State now has in respect of buildings.
Let me draw the right hon. Gentleman's attention to some specific and recent examples which make it quite clear that there is a parallel. Both the London borough of Southwark and the GLC have reached a view about the development of the St. Mary Overy's wharf. That went to a public inquiry, and the inspector recommended that one of the proposals for its development be refused and another be acceded to. In a specific part of his recommendation, the inspector said that there should not be demolition of one of the best buildings of its type on the London riverside —the St. Mary Overy's wharf. However, the Secretary of State overrode the views of the local authorities as reinforced and supported by the inspector.
The same thing has happened recently in relation to Free Trade wharf on the other side of the river. It happens regularly through the powers of the docklands corporation in London, which is the one that I know best, and also on Merseyside. The corporation has powers to intervene in a way that negatives local authority decisions about passing ownership of land.
The Lords amendment deals with consent to the disposal of land and is the reverse of the power which the Secretary of State has already taken to himself in relation to, say, the powers granted to the dockland corporations under the 1980 Act. The corporations are supposedly equally accountable to the electorate through the House, but are not accountable to the local electorate in the same way when land is vested and taken from the ownership of an authority and handed to another.
Various orders have been put before the House for the purpose of taking land from the ownership of the GLC, from the London borough of Southwark and other boroughs, to be handed to the London Dockland Development Corporation, for development by that corporation. The clause exactly reverses that position and adds to the powers that have been vested in the Secretary of State for the past four years.
The clause adds to the powers of the Secretary of State by now charging him with consideration of any disposals of land that come within the definition before us. That is a further measure of interference by the Secretary of State with the rights, responsibilities and traditional duties of local government. It is not in the pattern of British municipal life that decisions about land are dealt with by Secretaries of States, unless that land is owned by the Government. The land in question is not owned by the Government but is owned by and planned for by local


government. Nothing in the metropolitan areas and the GLC area differentiates land held there from land that is held by any other authority.
The first objection of my right hon. and hon. Friends is that the measure is clearly selective, but not because of a well-thought-out plan. It was not part of the Secretary of State's proposal when the Bill was first laid before Parliament. It was thought of only at the last moment because it seemed that the seven authorities might take decisions which the Secretary of State did not like, and in which he wished to intervene.
The subsections of Lords amendment No. 10, which I shall not deal with at length, raise the same fundamental objection as the similar clauses which we debated earlier in respect of the 2p rate. The Secretary of State told the House—I did not intervene in that debate because I knew that the matter could be raised here — that he would at some stage, perhaps tomorrow for all we know, tell us what classes or descriptions of land he will specify for deciding how various disposals will be dealt with. He did not lay before us tonight any specific proposals, nor did he tell us how large or how valuable are the parcels of land, or of what type they are.
The right hon. Gentleman is effectively writing himself a blank cheque. He is taking the absolute power to be able to say, without further control by the House or by anybody —there is no suggestion of a mechanism by which the House can debate further legislation of this type—what categories of land he can dispose of. There will be no opportunity of review other than because of his extreme abuse of that power.
Subsection (2) of Lords amendment No. 10 clearly says that the Secretary of State can give consent
in respect of a particular disposal"—
it might be a controversial site such as Coin street, or a site elsewhere along the London riverside—or he may give or withhold his consent in relation to a class of disposals. We are not told what the criteria will be. Alliance Members will support the amendment that was proposed by the hon. Member for Norwood (Mr. Fraser). People should know in advance the implications of any decisions. As amendment (a) suggests, the Secretary of State should
specify the matters he is to take into consideration
so that the local authorities know whether they are likely to fall within the ambit of the new clause when they contemplate how to deal with their land.
12.45 am
Amendments have been tabled to subsection (3), which gives the Secretary of State an additional power. One of the amendments tabled by my right hon. and hon. Friends and me—amendment (f)—seeks to give him that power if he wishes to exercise it, but not an additional power. The amendment suggests that the power that the Secretary of State has should "replace" and not "be in addition to" any consent that is already required of him by section 123 of the principal Local Government Act. Some of us try, by debating these matters, to elicit reasons from the Secretary of State, but one of the tragedies is that often we find ourselves sent away empty handed. There has been no prepared and justified rationale behind all these consequential and other amendments. We have heard no reason why the Secretary of State believes that the powers that he now seeks are necessary in addition to those that he already has under section 123.
Subsection (5) makes it clear how wide the amendment goes. It refers to all the types of dealing in land that

anybody who has had any experience of it will know about. For example, it deals implicitly—they are not excluded—with easements and rights of way. Included are very small rights of access to and from substantial areas of property, which, elsewhere, are subject to the Secretary of State's decision. The Secretary of State needs to come to the House, if he is to justify any support that he receives at the end of the debate, and persuade us why he requires such comprehensive rights over all contracts in relation to disposals of land.
One of the reasons which the Secretary of State has advanced over the past few clays, and which his colleague in the other place advanced only earlier this month when the new amendments were introduced, was that he anticipated that there would be abuse of powers under existing legislation by present local authorities — the seven metropolitan counties. Why can he not accept an amendment such as amendment (d), which we have tabled? I ask him to consider it again. We ask that he should be subject to administrative law that puts a restraint on the Executive. Many of us make the great complaint about the legal system that the Executive is so unanswerable to the courts.
The proposal is that the Secretary of State's consent
shall not unreasonably be withheld, and shall in any event be extended to the disposal of such land a clear intention to dispose of which was evident prior to 13th July 1984.
Long before the proposals were laid before Parliament, any metropolitan county or the GLC might have charged its officers to contemplate disposing of some land. It often would be a disposal between the county authority and a borough or district authority, so it would not mean any lessening of the public control of an asset in land, but only a transfer from one authority to another. Why should they not be allowed to justify, through their documentation, that they properly intended to dispose of that land before the Secretary of State suddenly threatened to bring down his guillotine?
There are proper parallels for that. After a divorce, one party might have got rid of a substantial asset explicitly to avoid the other party having his or her rightful dues in the post-marriage settlement. Under section 37 of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973, the court can direct that that money be brought back into the kitty so that it can be reallocated. It looks at the documents. We are asking for the same fair and traditional principle to be applied here. Where it is clear that the intention to dispose of an asset was not to prohibit the Secretary of State from exercising a legislative power, the Secretary of State must take that into account, and that must restrict the powers that he would otherwise have.
It is not sufficient for the Secretary of State to say that he will give reasons for his decision, but then to say that he will not accept an amendment that requires him to give reasons. One of the most unsatisfactory things about any power taken by any Secretary of State in any Department is when he does not have to justify what he does. Those who have looked at decisions made by Secretaries of State for the Environment will know that when comprehensive investigations have been carried out by an inspector, leading to conclusions, the Secretary of State can blandly, quickly and abruptly say that he has read the submissions, the report of the public inquiry and the inspector's report, and seen the conclusions, but still believes that it will be of economic advantage to the area that the development should take place, and so he ignores what has been said.
The Secretary of State should give reasons for his decisions. How can anyone challenge, if he wishes to do so, the propriety of actions in law, in a country with no constitutional court and no adequate way to deal with the Executive, unless the reasons are specified and set out?
Other amendments have been tabled because they are important, and I ask the Secretary of State to consider them for that reason. In particular, amendment (g) deals with the costs or charges that result from decisions made by the Secretary of State. As a result, the councils and the people in their areas have to pay more. As the Secretary of State reminds us all the time, it is not the councils which have the money, just as the money with which the Government play is not their money, but money which they hold on behalf of the people of the country. The councils hold money on behalf of the people who elected them, and that is why we are so opposed to the idea of suddenly getting rid of elections, without there being any proper responsibility in the exercise of powers to spend money.
The Secretary of State, if he adheres to the principle which it appears has motivated him for so long in pushing this legislation so hard through the House, must say something about the costs or charges that follow as a result of the disposal of land. For example, delays may incur extra interest charges, or a local authority may be bound by contractural obligations, having entered into an agreement to dispose by a certain date of land, which it does not fulfil. As a result it could incur charges that could run into thousands of pounds a week. Why should the Secretary of State not be willing to say that if he takes the power to delay a decision he will at least reimburse to local authorities the costs arising out of what he is doing?
The Secretary of State, his Department and his legislation have regularly eaten into the coffers of local authorities. The net result of all these amendments would be that the local authorities would not have the financial reserves which they had at the beginning eaten away by an additional demand from the Secretary of State which is not of their choosing or making, and is not in their control.
The Secretary of State might impose conditions in granting consent. He might say that a further search needs to be made, or that there must be a period for bids to be put in, or some other eventuality which he foresees as necessary. In that case, it is fair, equitable and only just to the people in the authority in question that his Department, out of central taxpayers' money should reimburse the money that local authorities have to spend.
Two substantial new clauses are being discussed, although in some ways the debate rightly links them. They deal with the Secretary of State's power to intervene in contracts that are entered into by local authorities. The idea has apparently again come rather late in the day from the Secretary of State and his Department. He seems to fear that contracts may be entered into tomorrow or, say, next week by the seven metropolitan counties. He also seems to fear that they will be able to enter into large contracts, so in the amendments approved by the other place he has set down a series of figures above which a contract must go to him for decision.
Why on earth were those figures chosen? They do not seem to come from anywhere. They are totally arbitrary and, as has been said, are probably the first ones that the Secretary of State thought of. They are nice, round figures.
Lords amendment No. 11 shows that the Secretary of State has plucked out a figure to apply to each category of contract. The figure for contracts involving building or engineering works is £250,000; for maintenance work, £100,000; for the supply of goods, £100,000; for administrative services, £100,000, and in relation to the use or purchase of plant or material it is also £100,000.
Those figures are totally arbitrary. Unless the Secretary of State can justify them, he must accept that our amendments to Lords amendment No. 11 are equally valid. They at least have the merit of increasing the amounts involved and thus of reducing the amount of interference by the Secretary of State. There is also an argument of practicality. The GLC's budget is larger than the budgets of 18 sovereign states, so we cannot complain if it often and quite properly enters into such six-figure contracts. It would therefore seem sensible for the right hon. Gentleman to have fewer contracts to scrutinise so that he can deal more closely with those which he does consider.
Conservative Back Benchers are here in such amazing numbers that I can see only one apart from the PPS, the Whip and the junior Minister. Even the Conservative Member present is beyond the Bar of the House and so presumably does not intend to speak. If the amendment is so necessary, why does the Secretary of State not tell us how many extra people will be needed by his Department to process the work?
This Bill, and the Bill which we gather is to come later, are designed primarily, apparently, to save money. The Government said that they wanted to get rid of a wasteful and unnecessary tier of government. We know that no figures have yet been produced, and they say that as yet figures cannot be produced, but the Secretary of State is now giving his Department many new responsibilities which will have to be dealt with by somebody. I hope that he will explain that soon. If he is saying to local authorities and their officers that they are less competent to deal with these matters than are people in his Department, we need to know who they are and at what cost they will be dealt with.
If the new limit were raised, as our amendment suggests, many routine contracts would immediately be exempted. I gather that there are 20 health and safety contracts at the moment, of which 13 would be exempted by raising the limits by the figures suggested. Half of all housing renovations would be exempted. The Secretary of State may say that health and safety contracts or housing renovation contracts will come within the category that he will designate as exempt in any event. He may be able to give us some illumination on what his proposals will be. He may give us, for example, a trailer for the statement that he intends to make later. But we should know why recurrent contracts which it has been the practice of Secretaries of State to keep out of, while the GLC and its predecessor the London county council has got on with them — routine and necessary matters to do with drainage and housing that arise every year — are suddenly required to be dealt with by the Secretary of State.
Some of the subjects that we are dealing with are unexciting. [Interruption.] —— Some are unexciting, no matter who is trying to deal with them. Even the hon Member for Houghton and Washington (Mr. Boyes) could not entertain the House for long on a subject such as waste


disposal. However, his hon. Friend the Member for Tyne Bridge (Mr. Cowans) did a good job in raising the quality and humour of the debate earlier.
Recurrent contracts for matters such as the transport of solid waste are bound to be included. Taking solid waste from central London has to be done on a massive scale every year. Such contracts should not have to be the subject of the Secretary of State's intervention. The contracts need to be entered into without delay. Every time there is a delay, either the contractor might increase the amount to the local authority or extra costs will be incurred because interim arrangements will have to be entered into which previously were not necessary because from year to year a recurrent contract was permissible.
The police and fire service in London want a new procedure so that they can purchase equipment, but we understand that under the new procedure the Secretary of State will want to consider whether new fire engines are needed. Those are matters of which there has been no complaint by the Secretary of State or his predecessors at any stage. Most of the departments with which the seven metropolitan counties deal have not been the subject of criticism at all.
The opposition have put to the Secretary of State and his colleagues, particularly the Under -Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Ealing, Acton (Sir G. Young), that the desperate crisis that we face needs every possible committed expenditure. For example, there is the housing crisis. Only a year ago the Secretary of State's Department was urging local authorities to spend capital sums on the renovation and improvement of housing stock in the cities. The Secretary of State now wants the right to intervene in that. That has not been and should not be his business.
The problem associated with the ILEA is specific to London. The ILEA's financial commitments are considerable. The Secretary of State will now have power to intervene in contracts that are regularly placed with it. Why is he not satisfied with the Secretary of State for Education and Science's right to intervene? He is best equipped to deal with the ILEA's contracts. There is no logic in the Secretary of State for the Environment being able to control a body that is not to be abolished. Having accepted that the ILEA should continue, there is no reason why it should be subject to the same constraints as the metropolitan counties and the GLC.
What is the Government's estimate of the extra costs that will be incurred by matters being referred to the Department of the Environment? If the Secretary of State refuses a contract, or if unreasonable conditions are imposed, a contractor will lose much time and money. In legal terms, there will be direct and indirect damages. It is important that the Goverment should quantify that cost and make plans to deal with any such loss. Much preparation time is spent on architecture in a contract for any form of local authority. The Secretary of State must say how he will remiburse the person hours that are spent on a contract that is aborted.
Extra documents might be produced and extra staff might have to be recruited to deal with proposed contracts. That means extra cost and local authorities will be under greater constraints because of rate-capping or other means of reducing rate support grant. If the Secretary of State does not specify the criteria by which he will make decisions, many contractors might not be able to make proper business decisions. That might have an effect on money and jobs. Does the Secretary of State claim that he

will be able to categorise the decisions that must be made each year by the metropolitan councils and the GLC? If he does, he will find that, like all similar claims, it 'will be disproved.
Will the Secretary of State be able to force those different types of commercial contracts into rigid groups? If Tyne and Wear, West Yorkshire or South Yorkshire decided to purchase a fleet of police cars, would that be governed by general consent? What would happen if the price of the cars increased while the Secretary of State had called the contract in? The citizens of Tyne and Wear, West Yorkshire or South Yorkshire may believe that those cars are necessary for the police to go about their business and keep down the incidence of law breaking, such as burglary and mugging, which happen everywhere.
If the metropolitan councils and the GLC, which often purchase for their district and borough authorities, were told that they could not do that and must rein in that decision because the Secretary of State wants to consider it, the work of the second tier of local government, which the Secretary of State claims he wishes to help through this legislation, will be hindered. It is ironic that the Secretary of State alleges that he wants to bring local government to that lower level, yet will hinder its work by these interventionist measures.
I have dealt with a long and important list of amendments, each of which deserves better attention from the Secretary of State than he has given so far. Does the Secretary of State accept that the only reason why his and his colleagues' proposals will be resisted tonight is that he is determined, whatever the merits, the practicability and workability of the legislation, and whatever its implications for local authorities' staffs, their workloads and the people in the seven areas involved, to get the legislation through Parliament? The right hon. Gentleman will not be responsible for the cost. It will not come from his or his Department's pockets. The financial cost will be born by the ratepayers. If the right hon. Gentleman abolishes the GLC, or if his Department manages to steamroller the cities, as is expected, the local boroughs and districts will have to pick up the tabs. All the delays and additional costs will be passed on to them in the transitional proposals, about which we shall no doubt hear next Session. That is not satisfactory, because these proposals have not been properly argued. They were introduced into the Bill at the last minute when it went to the other place and the Government realised that it was unpopular.
Later, the Secretary of State will ask the House to amend the long title of the Bill so that the Bill can contain these proposals. His final amendment tonight seeks to change the purpose of the original Bill. That is a ludicrous proposition. Such amendments show how shallow, unjustified and prejudiced the Secretary of State's arguments are. They show how amazingly paranoid he and his colleagues have become. They are unwilling to face the electors at the ballot box in the counties in question and. to rely on the legislation that they have piloted through the House. They will not rely on the legislation which set up the GLC and the MCCs, the Local Government Act 1972 which deals with section 137 and local authorities' contracts, or the 1980 legislation, which dealt with those matters.
The Government are not even willing to rely on their Tory colleagues in the councils in question, who, as has been shown in the past few days, have the right and the


power, if they believe the law is being broken, to go to court. They do not believe that the judges will be on their side, and they do not believe that they can rely on the integrity of the people who support their party in local government. They do not believe that they can rely on all the experience of the officers in local government until now, or on the Audit Commission and the other bodies set up by the Secretary of State to ensure that local government is accountable and does not waste money.
1.15 am
We gather that in the middle of August — the Secretary of State denies that it is anything but a first draft —when, of course, no one will be here to protest, we shall have a report from the Audit Commission saying that all these proposals cost the ratepayer nothing except for £1·5 million extra, because what the Secretary of State believes is waste by local authorities is waste by central l Government. The balance of the argument has not been made out.
The only recourse open to us is to say that it is not good enough for the Government, two days before the end of a Session and having just put those proposals before the House for debate for the first time, to expect to get them through tonight. I understand that the only procedure open to us is to say that the matters should be adjourned until they can be considered properly. As I understand the Standing Orders of the House and "Erskine May", it is open to me to move that the House do now adjourn.
As I understand the procedures of what "Erskine May" calls dilatory motions, where a new matter comes before the House that was not contemplated in the Bill as originally proposed, nor in the long title of the Bill, and clearly—as was admitted by Lord Bellwin in another place—was a last-minute reaction and simply something thought up by the Government — [Interruption.] It appears that the Government are making last-minute contingency plans of a different sort to try to get some hon. Members into the Chamber to deal with something of which they had not thought.
It must be right that the House has the opportunity to decide whether it should debate this matter further tonight. The proposals before us should not be in the Bill. If they should have been in any Bill, it was the Rates Bill, which is now the Rates Act 1984. If they had to be in this Bill, they should have been introduced at the beginning when the Government had plans for controlling local authority expenditure, because they knew from the beginning that they wanted to save money. They have now decided that their original proposals are ineffective, so they have dreamt up some other unsupported proposals.
I ask for your ruling, Mr. Deputy Speaker, on a motion, That this House do now adjourn. The Bill before us is not the Bill presented to us at the beginning. The matter is not properly constitutionally before us. The Standing Orders permit the House to vote on this matter, and I am sure that your learned Clerk will advise you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that "Erskine May" states that it is perfectly proper for such a motion to be made by someone who is called to speak, although it need not be tabled, and must be put at the end of his remarks to the House.
On behalf of all of us in the House who despise the Government for trying to steamroller local government late in the day and in the night, without reasons and simply

for spite and malice, I ask that the House adjourns now and that we consider this matter in the next Session of this Parliament when we and the Government have had an opportunity to think about, work out and plan properly the proposals before the House.
I beg to move, That this House do now adjourn.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. I have listened to what the hon. Gentleman has said. In accordance with the provisions of Standing Order No. 29, I am not prepared to entertain his motion.

Mr. Tony Banks: The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) gave a characteristically thoughtful speech, with a little gimmickry at the end, which did not work out—but nine out of 10 for trying. He pleaded with the Conservative Benches, which look packed now in contrast with his earlier remarks; I would not wish to detain Conservative Members if they have other places to go.
The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey said that he hoped to appeal to the Secretary of State with cool and quiet reason. Quite frankly, he must believe in Father Christmas if he believes that he will convince this Secretary of State that he has it wrong. The evidence that the right hon. Gentleman has it wrong can be seen from the empty Conservative Benches—only half a dozen Members have supported the Government Front Bench during the debate on this amendment. Given the significance of the amendment and what it is proposed to do to locally democratically-elected councillors, Conservative Members should surely show more concern. Of course, they do not want to know; they do not want to hear any of the arguments; their ears are stopped, their orders have come from the bunker at No. 10. They will do what they are told to do, in good, zombie-like tradition. The hon. Gentleman, trying to appeal to reason, might as well whistle in the wind, because he will get nothing at all.
I can tell the hon. Gentleman what the amendment is all about — it is about trying to catch the GLC's advertising contracts. The Secretary of State missed the boat on the last amendment; he has missed it again on this. The GLC anticipated this a mile off and the money has been safely moved out. The campaign will continue and the right hon. Gentleman will see the morning advertisements, and the feeling of Londoners will continue strongly to support the GLC.
The Minister was trying to catch out the GLC, but he has failed. The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey asked why the Secretary of State has taken these powers. I can tell him that it is because it allows him to assume control of the GLC eight months before the present period of office expires in May 1985. For a Government who once said that they intended to take central Government off the backs of local government, what a U-turn, what a volte-face, it is. I have never seen anything like it. They now propose to take over a democratically elected local authority. The mandate of the GLC is at least as valid as that of the Secretary of State. Conservative Members may say, "Ah, but our mandate is bigger; we are Parliament and we can overrule your mandate," but that is a funny argument for democrats, if that is what the Government purport to be. Why should the Secretary of State believe that, by his decisions, the electors of London and the decisions that they made at the ballot box in May 1981 can be brushed to one side and that


he can take over the running of the GLC? The right hon. Gentleman will not be able to do that. We are still at least two steps in front of him. We intend to remain there.
When I asked my series of questions, I was trying to find out whether the Secretary of State had an explanation for the number of contracts that the GLC was negotiating. I asked him what knowledge he had of contracts entered into by the GLC and the metropolitan councils in the past 12 months for the same or similar engineering works in respect of which the consideration exceeded £250,000. The answer was given by the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, the hon. Member for Bristol, West (Mr. Waldegrave) who was once tipped by Vogue magazine as one of the 12 most likely people to be running the cosmos— or something. Perhaps it was Time magazine, or even Peter Jay—and we know what happened to him. The information available to Time magazine was probably as authentic as the information available to civil servants at Marsham street who got it just as wrong. The Under-Secretary said that he had little information and that it was irrelevant to the justification for such minimum controls over authorities.
I asked how many civil servants would be employed on work associated with processing transactions worth over £100,000. The answer was "Enough". That was amusing and much to the point, but Ministers are doing nothing more than glory in their own stupidity and ignorance. They do not know what is involved. They have not the faintest idea. Their civil servants have not the faintest idea. Instead of saying that they are trying to obtain the information, Ministers have decided to try to brazen it out and to glory in their ignorance.
Does the Secretary of State believe that it will instil confidence in the loyal workers and officers at County hall to know that the right hon. Gentleman is assuming powers over contracts about which he has no information? Let me be allowed to assist the Secretary of State in his usual state of woeful ignorance. The right hon. Gentleman might have taken time to read the Financial Times of Thursday 12 July which reported that the GLC was top of the list of local authorities which run the most efficient purchasing divisions, according to the audit commissioners.
The Secretary of State should read the report by the GLC's supplies department and pass it to his civil servants. It tells about an organisation with a turnover of £186 million a year in supplying goods and services. It is interesting that the London boroughs which purchased the most from the GLC supplies department are Croydon, Barnet, Bexley, Waltham Forest and Ealing—all Tory controlled. They go to the GLC supplies department because they know that it gives the value for money and is efficient. What greater efficiency does the Minister believe exists among his civil servants? What greater expertise can he produce?
The GLC supplies department deals with about 250 contracts a week. That information is relatively freely available. Does the Secretary of State think that he has the expertise or manpower in his Department to deal with that amount of business? I do not think that he has. He will not convince us that his proposal will add anything to the efficiency of contractual arrangements for supplies to the London boroughs, the polytechnics, or others. The right hon. Gentleman should think again.

Mr. Chris Smith: Let us remind ourselves of the context in which the Bill comes before us. We have as yet no published main abolition legislation. We do not even have the Government's revised proposals. They, we gather, are due to come before the House later in the day. The Bill therefore contains a vacuum.
The powers that the Secretary of State wishes to take in regard to disposals of land and the allocation of contracts are draconian, for under them he will impose his will on local authorities throughout the country. Yet, Parliament has not been given the right hon. Gentleman's reasons for taking that step.
I have two points to make, the first of which was dealt with eloquently by my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks). How can the Secretary of State and his officials take on the large and detailed job of guiding and approving every contract of the size specified in the amendment that ILEA and the GLC issue?
Before approving ILEA's contracts each year, will the right hon. Gentleman examine in detail contracts for fireproof curtains, photocopying facilities, the purchase of school desks, vehicles, crockery, computers, window cleaning and the hire of transport? All of those contracts are over the limit specified in the amendment. Considering the detailed work involved, the job is far too big for him and his officials.
Secondly, under the heading of building contracts are many valuable and expected contracts to be carried out in ILEA schools and in respect of housing and other capital works by the GLC. What guarantee can I give my constituents that maintenance work costing over £100,000, which is planned for the North London college in Camden road, will go ahead as planned after the Secretary of State adopts these powers?
What guarantee do I have that new building work planned and due to cost over £200,000 at Islington Green school will go ahead in the way in which ILEA has described to the governors of the school, parents and the local community? What guarantee can I give my constituents that the Secretary of State knows or cares anything about works which are desperately needed, but which the Bill will potentially put at risk?
If the right hon. Gentleman can put my mind at rest on those points, I may feel happier. As things stand, considering the powers that he is taking, I fear for the work which is scheduled and for the needs of my constituents.

Mr. Dubs: There can be no justification for the proposed financial controls over the GLC and the metropolitan counties. That means that there is even less justification for such controls to be imposed on the Inner London education authority. 'The ILEA will continue to exist, perhaps with the same form of elected councillors, but that depends on legislation which is to be introduced in the next Session. I do not understand why the Secretary of State wishes to have these powers of control over the ILEA when it is to continue in its present form, despite the various turmoils in other areas of local government. In the Government's hurry to get amendments through the other place, they probably did not pause to consider the consequences. When I referred to the ILEA in an earlier debate the Minister who replied did not even comment on it. The Secretary of State owes it to us to explain why he needs such powers over the ILEA.

Mr. Patrick Jenkin: I shall try to deal with the several issues which have been raised during the debate. I do not think that I need go at length into the justification for Lords amendments Nos. 10 and 11, except to say that they are similar to Lords amendment No. 9. We believe that to prevent the saddling of the successor authorities with onerous burdens or the loss of assets, especially the loss of land, which could devolve upon the authorities, it is necessary to introduce new clauses. The Lords amendments are necessary to protect the successor authorities and the ratepayers of the counties and of the GLC.
We read in the press almost every day of new attempts to forestall this legislation and to get transactions through to avoid the effect of its provisions. It has been made clear that there is ample scope for mischief. Once again, the GLC stands condemned out of the mouth of the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks), who made it clear that it is his intention and that of his colleagues on the GLC to keep just two jumps ahead of the Department of the Environment.

Mr. Tony Banks: Is that a crime?

Mr. Jenkin: No, it is not a crime, but it provides a perfect justification for the legislation that we are seeking to enact. With the acceptance of Lords amendment No. 2 and the continuation in office of the councils, the opportunity for making mischief is much greater than it was. That is why it became necessary to introduce the new clauses in another place.

Mr. John Fraser: We know that the Secretary of State dislikes the GLC advertising campaign as much as he likes that of the National Coal Board. Can he give us one example of an abuse involving the sale of land for which the local authority has to get the best possible consideration?

Mr. Jenkin: I can understand that the local authority has to get the best possible consideration. I am turning to this issue under section 123. Is it not conceivable that a metropolitan county council may find that it has a good offer for a site for refuse disposal? It may well say, "We shall not have to deal with that. That responsibility will be for the successor authorities, so let us sell off the land and get good value." That causes great concern to the successor authorities, which will continue to have to perform certain functions after 1 April.

Mr. Tony Banks: What should the authorities do with the money?

Mr. Jenkin: That is another matter. The successor authorities could be placed in the position of having to buy back the site. The hon. Gentleman asked me for an example, and I have given him one.
Amendment (d) to Lords amendment No. 10. and amendment (j) to Lords amendment No. 11 provide that consent should not be unreasonably withheld and that consent must be given where a clear intention to dispose had been evidenced before the Lords amendment was tabled on 13 July 1984. I point out to the hon. Member of Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) that the requirement to exercise statutory powers reasonably is already a well-established principle of public law. There is no need to spell that out in the Bill. That action would only invite spurious legal challenge.
The point made by the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey about a clear intention to dispose is unworkable. What would constitute adequate evidence of a clear intention? Even if there were simple answers to those two questions—I suspect that there are no such simple answers—what would be the purpose of having such a condition? If the disposal or contract is reasonable, it will obtain consent. The amendment would give endless opportunities for challenges in court about intention and evidence of intention, and the hon. Gentleman's point about the effectiveness of delay might become valid.
Amendment (e) to Lords amendment No. 10 requiring reasons for a consent or refusal to be given, is the same as amendment (k) to Lords amendment No. 11. The grounds for a decision will, as a matter of course, be given with that decision. That is normal practice, and I assure the House that that will be the case for disposals and contracts. To put that provision in the Bill is an invitation to make a challenge in the courts. It is easy to imagine an abolition authority—[Interruption.] It will, of course, be justiciable. The Wednesbury case is a case in point that established the principle that powers must be used reasonably. To duplicate that principle of public law by an express statutory provision would give rise to doubt and litigation which might not otherwise happen. I am grateful to have my hon. Friends' support for that proposition.

Mr. John Fraser: That is absolute rubbish. Does not the right hon. Gentleman know that in the Landlord and Tenant Act 1927, where a landlord can withhold or grant consent to a licence to assign, it is stated—as it is in many other statutes involving private transactions in land —that consent is not to be unreasonably withheld? If that is good enough for the private sector, why is it not good enough for the right hon. Gentleman?

Mr. Jenkin: There is no such presumption about a private contract. Some years ago, in an earlier life, I advised on precisely that point where no such provision appeared in the lease. The question was: did the common law import an obligation not unreasonably to withhold consent? My recollection is that it did not. We are talking about public law, where the courts have well established the proposition that powers must be exercised reasonably. It would be unnecessary to import that idea specifically and expressly into the legislation.
Amendment (a) to Lords amendment No. 10, which was moved by the hon. Member for Norwood (Mr. Fraser), is similar in form to amendment (c) to Lords amendment No. 11. The amendment would require me to specify the matters that I should have to consider before exercising my power. That power has been spoken of as "my" power; but, of course, in any statute the "Secretary of State" means the appropriate Secretary of State. When dealing with an education power, that means my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science. A fire power — for instance, the purchase of fire engines, as was mentioned in the debate—would be a matter for my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary.
1.45 am
The question here relates to the matters that I should take into consideration. I mentioned this briefly when we discussed the last group of amendments. It is not clear from the terms of the amendment whether I would have to specify the matters in each and every case or whether


it would be sufficient for me to do so in general terms. It is not clear for what purpose this would be done or to whom I should make the matters known.
Amendments couched in this form are unnecessary and unworkable. I assure the House that every application for specific consent will be considered carefully on its merits, and the reasons for the decision will be given. But because of the great variety of disposals and contracts which might come forward for consent, it is impossible to specify at this stage all the matters which it would be right for the Secretary of State to take into consideration.
What would be much more helpful, rather than trying to spell out some general principles, are the types of disposals and contracts for which there would be general consents. Those are contracts which would be acceptable and could be undertaken without the need for specific consent. If any abolition authority is in any doubt about this power, all the guidance that it needs is that it should behave reasonably and responsibly and have regard not only to ratepayers' present interests, but to their future interests.
I was asked what were the matters that might be the subject of general consents. As the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) recognises and acknow-ledges, we are currently, as a matter of urgency, consulting the authorities concerned about what would be appropriate for general consents to take effect either on Royal Assent or as soon after as possible.
We would suggest contracts let for building work pursuant to approvals under section 14 of the Education Act 1980 or regulation 7 of the Education Act (Schools and Further Education) Regulations 1981; secondly, schemes of more than £1 million named in transport supplementary grant decision letters and singled out for TSG support by Ministers in other correspondence and schemes accepted for specific grants—obviously these are contracts which are subject to specific consents by Government Departments; thirdly, schemes approved under the derelict land grant procedures; fourthly, schemes which receive grant approvals issued by the Secretary of State under section 1 of the Local Government Grants (Social Need) Act 1969—that is, grants under the urban programme and the GLC housing renovation programmes required by the transferred housing stock orders. The hon. Gentleman mentioned the right to buy. Under housing we certainly envisage that the right-to-buy provisions and voluntary disposal of housing held under part V, in so far as they are sales to tenants or individual owner-occupiers, will be the subject of general consents.
Perhaps I do not need to go through the whole list—it is at the moment out for consultation with the local authorities—but I have said enough to demonstrate that we envisage a wide measure of general consents for transactions that are part and parcel of the normal activities of local authorities.

Dr. Cunningham: Given the list that the Secretary of State has just read into the record, will he say which of those consents he could legally refuse as matters stand?

Mr. Jenkin: When the Bill becomes law, consent will be subject only to the specific statutory provisions; but I could equally well withhold consent under the clause that we are discussing. However, I should have to act reasonably. I am seeking to show to the House that the Government are approaching this necessary power in a

reasonable way, and a way which is intended to minimise the additional work which will fall upon local authorities and Government Departments.
The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey mentioned amendment (g) to Lords amendment No. 10, which is similar to amendment (m) to Lords amendment No. 11. He seeks to make the Government responsible for any costs or charges arising out of a refusal or conditional consent or from any delay. We cannot accept that. We intend to try to operate these powers with the minimum of delay and expense. If authorities come forward at the earliest opportunity—when a project nears the point of decision—and seeks consent, there need be no extra cost and very little delay. If there is, there is ample precedent for the costs of securing the necessary licence or permission to fall upon the authority which seeks such permission as part of the ordinary costs of the local authority concerned.

Mr. Simon Hughes: Will the Secretary of State confirm that it is highly likely that there will be some cost, that this provision will certainly be of no financial benefit to the authorities and that, whether the costs are small or large, the local authorities will have to pay and will not be reimbursed?

Mr. Jenkin: The hon. Gentleman has correctly stated the position, but it will be our intention to keep those costs to the absolute minimum.
Those who have put their names to this amendment should bear in mind that if we reimbursed any of the costs in full, that would be an open licence to an abolition authority to clog up the machinery as much as it could to make life as difficult as possible for the Government.
The hon. Member for Newham, North-West has indicated that such an ambition is not far from his mind, but that would be a guarantee of substantial extra costs and delay. Even if the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey were prepared to overlook that possibility, we may be sure that the abolition authorities would not.

Mr. Tony Banks: rose—

Mr. Jenkin: I must press on. We cannot subscribe to the notion that each time I mention an hon. Member I automatically give him the right to intervene.
Amendment (f) to Lords amendment No. 10 is more serious. It seeks to make a consent under the Bill sufficient for all purposes so that it would replace any other consent required under the Acts. I can understand why this has a superficial attraction which might have commended it to some hon. Members.
In fact, it would not be appropriate for the simple reason that the criteria on which a decision would depend under this Bill would be quite different from the criteria under the various consent powers in other legislation.
The hon. Member for Norwood mentioned section 123 of the Local Government Act 1972. Quite different criteria would apply. That Act requires Government consent for the disposal of land below market value. It might be entirely appropriate in the ordinary course of events for such a consent to be given, whereas it might be entirely appropriate and reasonable to withhold consent for an abolition authority, shortly to go out of existence, which has assets which should be properly devolved to the local authority after 1 April.
Therefore, it would not be right simply to subsume the one into the other and to assume that all the necessary consents can be given at the same time. We do not want to see the removal of the existing consents from the Bill.
No one spoke to amendment (b) to Lords amendment No. 11, which deals with consulting staff bodies. That is totally inappropriate. The new clause expressly excludes staff contracts. Therefore the amendment is unnecessary.
It was said that the contract clauses and the question of thresholds were purely figures drawn from the air. The level at which to pitch the threshold above which contracts will be caught by the new clause must be a matter of judgment. We want it to be sufficiently high to eliminate the need to refer many small contracts to the Government, but no so high that many substantial contracts go through, because those might constitute the mischief at which the Lords amendment is aimed.
To raise the threshold from the current £250,000 in the Bill to £1 million would provide too wide a discretion for authorities to spend without regard for the future. Similarly, for other types of contract described in the new clause, the amendment suggests £500,000 rather than £100,000. Those additions would raise the threshold very high and substantially weaken the protective purpose of the clause as a whole.
The suggestion of higher figures is unacceptable, but, in the light of experience, it would be open to the Government to raise the threshold by the operation of general consents. If, after we have had limited experience of operating the clause, it seems right to move in the direction of the amendments, we shall be prepared to do so.

Mr. Simon Hughes: As we have not yet heard any facts or percentages, can the Secretary of State tell us what proportion of the contracts are governed by his levels, as set out in the Bill, to give us some idea of the number of contracts to which we are referring?

Mr. Jenkin: In relation to the GLC, I have seen a figure suggesting that 250 contracts a week would be caught by the proposals. I think that that figure was mentioned by the hon. Member for Newham, North-West. The view of my Department is that that is a significant overestimate of the number of contracts that would be caught. The list is not unmanageable, however, and I hope that it will be substantially lower. I cannot tell the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey the proportions of contracts involved, as we do not have all of the details of the small contracts.
I have to tell the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) that ILEA is not included as an error, but simply because, so long as ILEA remains a special committee of the GLC and the properties and contracts are in the name of the GLC and not ILEA, as at present, it will be impossible to distinguish between contracts that are entered into for the benefit of ILEA and other GLC contracts.
The hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury shakes his head, but he knows that ILEA has no corporate personality. It is merely a special committee of the GLC. Thus, the GLC is party to all the contracts concerned, and it would be difficult, if not impossible, to operate the distinction that amendment (1) seeks to raise.
In some cases, it might be possible to say that the GLC was acting as an education authority, but in other cases, where ILEA was the eventual user or beneficiary, the connection would be tenuous and difficult to disentangle. It is even possible that attempts to operate such a distinction could give rise to further delay and costs in handling applications for consent, which would put a heavier burden on the GLC. What I said earlier about certain education contracts being subject to general consents will, I hope, go some way to reassuring the hon. Gentleman.
I believe that both the new clauses are necessary to protect the interests of successor authorities and ratepayers. I fear that I cannot commend to the House the amendments that have been moved and spoken to by Opposition Members. I hope very much that the House will reject the amendments and, when the Question is put, will accept Lords amendments Nos. 10 and 11.
2 am
Amendment (a) proposed to Lords amendment No. 10, in line 8, at end, insert—
'(2A) Before exercising his power under this section to grant or refuse consent, the Secretary of State shall specify the matters he is to take into consideration in granting or refusing his consent; and any consent or refusal of consent by the Secretary of State under this section shall be accompanied by reasons for his decision. '.—[Mr. Straw.]

Question put, That amendment (a) to the Lords amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 132, Noes 269.

Division No 458]
[12.12 am


AYES


 Adley, Robert
Brooke, Hon Peter


Aitken, Jonathan
Brown, M. (Brigg &amp; Cl'thpes)


Alexander, Richard
Browne, John


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Bruinvels, Peter


Amess, David
Bryan, Sir Paul


Ancram, Michael
Buck, Sir Antony


Ashby, David
Budgen, Nick


Aspinwall, Jack
Bulmer, Esmond


Atkins, Rt Hon Sir H.
Butcher, John


Atkins, Robert (South Ribble)
Butterfill, John


Atkinson, David (B'm'th E)
Carlisle, John (N Luton)


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Vall'y)
Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)


Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)
Carttiss, Michael


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Cash, William


Batiste, Spencer
Chalker, Mrs Lynda


Bendall, Vivian
Channon, Rt Hon Paul


Berry, Sir Anthony
Chapman, Sydney


Best, Keith
Chope, Christopher


Bevan, David Gilroy
Churchill, W. S.


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Clark, Hon A. (Plym'th S'n)


Biggs-Davison, Sir John
Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)


Body, Richard
Cockeram, Eric


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Colvin, Michael


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Conway, Derek


Bottomley, Peter
Cope, John


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Cranborne, Viscount


Bowden, A. (Brighton K'to'n)
Critchley, Julian


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Crouch, David


Boyson, Dr Rhodes
Currie, Mrs Edwina


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Dicks, Terry


Bright, Graham
Dorrell, Stephen


Brinton, Tim
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.






Dover, Den
Lang, Ian


du Cann, Rt Hon Edward
Latham, Michael


Durant, Tony
Lawler, Geoffrey


Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)
Lawrence, Ivan


Eggar, Tim
Lee, John (Pendle)


Emery, Sir Peter
Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)


Fallon, Michael
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark


Farr, Sir John
Lewis, Sir Kenneth (Stamf'd)


Favell, Anthony
Lightbown, David


Fenner, Mrs Peggy
Lilley, Peter


Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey
Lloyd, Ian (Havant)


Fookes, Miss Janet
Lloyd, Peter, (Fareham)


Forman, Nigel
Lord, Michael


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Luce, Richard


Forth, Eric
Lyell, Nicholas


Fowler, Rt Hon Norman
McCurley, Mrs Anna


Fox, Marcus
MacGregor, John


Franks, Cecil
MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire)


Fraser, Peter (Angus East)
MacKay, John (Argyll &amp; Bute)


Freeman, Roger
Maclean, David John


Fry, Peter
McQuarrie, Albert


Gale, Roger
Madel, David


Gardiner, George (Reigate)
Malins, Humfrey


Glyn, Dr Alan
Malone, Gerald


Goodhart, Sir Philip
Maples, John


Goodlad, Alastair
Marland, Paul


Gorst, John
Marlow, Antony


Gow, Ian
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)


Gower, Sir Raymond
Mates, Michael


Grant, Sir Anthony
Maude, Hon Francis


Greenway, Harry
Mawhinney, Dr Brian


Gregory, Conal
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Griffiths, E. (B'y St Edm'ds)
Mayhew, Sir Patrick


Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)
Mellor, David


Grist, Ian
Merchant, Piers


Grylls, Michael
Miller, Hal (B'grove)


Gummer, John Selwyn
Mills, Iain (Meriden)


Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)
Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon)


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Miscampbell, Norman


Hampson, Dr Keith
Mitchell, David (NW Hants)


Hanley, Jeremy
Moate, Roger


Hannam,John
Monro, Sir Hector


Harris, David
Montgomery, Fergus


Harvey, Robert
Moore, John


Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael
Mudd, David


Hawkins, C. (High Peak)
Murphy, Christopher


Hawkins, Sir Paul (SW N'folk)
Neale, Gerrard


Hawksley, Warren
Needham, Richard


Hayes, J.
Nelson, Anthony


Hayhoe, Barney
Neubert, Michael


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Nicholls, Patrick


Henderson, Barry
Normanton, Tom


Hill, James
Norris, Steven


Hind, Kenneth
Onslow, Cranley


Hirst, Michael
Oppenheim, Phillip


Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)
Osborn, Sir John


Holland, Sir Philip (Gedling)
Ottaway, Richard


Holt, Richard
Page, Sir John (Harrow W)


Hooson, Tom
Page, Richard (Herts SW)


Hordern, Peter
Patten, John (Oxford)


Howard, Michael
Pattie, Geoffrey


Howarth, Alan (Stratf'd-on-A)
Pawsey, James


Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)
Percival, Rt Hon Sir Ian


Howell, Ralph (N Norfolk)
Pollock, Alexander


Hubbard-Miles, Peter
Porter, Barry


Hunter, Andrew
Powell, William (Corby)


Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas
Powley, John


Irving, Charles
Proctor, K. Harvey


Jackson, Robert
Raffan, Keith


Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick
Renton, Tim


Jessel, Toby
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Ridsdale, Sir Julian


Jones, Robert (W Herts)
Rifkind, Malcolm


Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine
Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)


Key, Robert
Robinson, Mark (N'port W)


King, Roger (B'ham N'field)
Roe, Mrs Marion


Knight, Gregory (Derby N)
Rost, Peter


Knight, Mrs Jill (Edgbaston)
Rumbold, Mrs Angela


Lamont, Norman
Ryder, Richard





Sackville, Hon Thomas
Thorne, Neil (Ilford S)


Sainsbury, Hon Timothy
Thornton, Malcolm


Sayeed, Jonathan
Thurnham, Peter


Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Shelton, William (Streatham)
Trippier, David


Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Trotter, Neville


Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)
Twinn, Dr Ian


Shersby, Michael
van Straubenzee, Sir W.


Silvester, Fred
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Sims, Roger
Viggers, Peter


Skeet, T. H. H.
Waddington, David


Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)
Waldegrave, Hon William


Speller, Tony
Walden, George


Spencer, Derek
Waller, Gary


Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)
Ward, John


Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)
Wardle, C. (Bexhill)


Squire, Robin
Warren, Kenneth


Stanbrook, Ivor
Watson, John


Steen, Anthony
Watts, John


Stern, Michael
Wells, Bowen (Hertford)


Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)
Wheeler, John


Stevens, Martin (Fulham)
Whitfield, John


Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)
Whitney, Raymond


Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)
Wiggin, Jerry


Stewart, Ian (N Hertf'dshire)
Wilkinson, John


Stradling Thomas, J.
Wolfson, Mark


Sumberg, David
Wood, Timothy


Tapsell, Peter
Woodcock, Michael


Taylor, John (Solihull)
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)
Younger, Rt Hon George


Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman



Temple-Morris, Peter
Tellers for the Ayes:


Thomas, Rt Hon Peter
Mr. John Major and Mr. David Hunt 


Thompson, Donald (Calder V)




Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)



NOES


Alton, David
Dalyell, Tam


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Davies, Ronald (Caerphilly)


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'ge H'l)


Ashton, Joe
Deakins, Eric


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Dewar, Donald


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Dixon, Donald


Barnett, Guy
Dobson, Frank


Barron, Kevin
Dormand, Jack


Beckett, Mrs Margaret
Douglas, Dick


Beith, A. J.
Dubs, Alfred


Bell, Stuart
Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.


Benn, Tony
Eadie, Alex


Bennett, A. (Dent'n &amp; Red'sh)
Eastham, Ken


Bermingham, Gerald
Evans, John (St. Helens N)


Bidwell, Sydney
Ewing, Harry


Blair, Anthony
Fatchett, Derek


Boyes, Roland
Field, Frank (Birkenhead)


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Fisher, Mark


Brown, N. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne E)
Flannery, Martin


Brown, R. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne N)
Foster, Derek


Bruce, Malcolm
Foulkes, George


Buchan, Norman
Fraser, J. (Norwood)


Caborn, Richard
Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald


Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd &amp; M)
Garrett, W. E.


Campbell-Savours, Dale
George, Bruce


Canavan, Dennis
Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John


Carlile, Alexander (Montg'y)
Godman, Dr Norman


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Golding, John


Cartwright, John
Hamilton, James (M'well N)


Clarke, Thomas
Hancock, Mr. Michael


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Hardy, Peter


Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S.)
Harman, Ms Harriet


Cohen, Harry
Harrison, Rt Hon Walter


Conlan, Bernard
Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith


Cook, Frank (Stockton North)
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy


Corbett, Robin
Heffer, Eric S.


Corbyn, Jeremy
Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)


Cowans, Harry
Holland, Stuart (Vauxhall)


Cox, Thomas (Tooting)
Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)


Craigen, J. M.
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)


Cunningham, Dr John
Hughes, Simon (Southwark)






Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)
Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)


Kennedy, Charles
Nellist, David


Kilroy-Silk, Robert
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


Lambie, David
O'Brien, William


Lamond, James
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Leadbitter, Ted
Owen, Rt Hon Dr David


Leighton, Ronald
Park, George


Lewis, Terence (Worsley)
Parry, Robert


Litherland, Robert
Patchett, Terry


Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Pavitt, Laurie


Lofthouse, Geoffrey
Pendry, Tom


McCartney, Hugh
Penhaligon, David


McDonald, Dr Oonagh
Pike, Peter


McGuire, Michael
Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)


Mackenzie, Rt Hon Gregor
Prescott, John


Maclennan, Robert
Redmond, M.


Madden, Max
Rees, Rt Hon M. (Leeds S)


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Richardson, Ms Jo


Maynard, Miss Joan
Roberts, Allan (Bootle)


Meacher, Michael
Robertson, George


Michie, William
Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)


Mikardo, Ian
Rogers, Allan


Millan, Rt Hon Bruce
Rooker, J. W.


Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)
Ross, Ernest (Dundee W)




Rowlands, Ted
Tinn, James


Sheerman, Barry
Torney, Tom


Sheldon, Rt Hon R.
Wainwright, R.


Shore, Rt Hon Peter
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Short, Ms Clare (Ladywood)
Wareing, Robert


Silkin, Rt Hon J.
Welsh, Michael


Skinner, Dennis
Wigley, Dafydd


Smith, C.(Isl'ton S &amp; F'bury)
Winnick, David


Snape, Peter
Woodall, Alec


Soley, Clive



Spearing, Nigel
Tellers for the Noes:


Straw, Jack
Mr. John McWillam and Mr. Allen McKay.


Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)



Thompson, J. (Wansbeck)

Division No. 459]
[1.59 am


AYES


Alton, David
Dixon, Donald


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Dobson, Frank


Ashdown, Paddy
Dormand, Jack


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Dubs, Alfred


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.


Barnett, Guy
Eadie, Alex


Barron, Kevin
Eastham, Ken


Beckett, Mrs Margaret
Evans, John (St. Helens N)


Beith, A. J.
Ewing, Harry


Bell, Stuart
Fatchett, Derek


Benn, Tony
Fisher, Mark


Bennett, A. (Dent'n S Red'sh)
Flannery, Martin


Bermingham, Gerald
Foster, Derek


Blair, Anthony
Foulkes, George


Boyes, Roland
Fraser, J. (Norwood)


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald


Brown, N. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne E)
Garrett, W. E.


Brown, R. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne N)
George, Bruce


Bruce, Malcolm
Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John


Buchan, Norman
Godman, Dr Norman


Caborn, Richard
Golding, John


Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd &amp; M)
Hancock, Mr. Michael


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Hardy, Peter


Canavan, Dennis
Harman, Ms Harriet


Carlile, Alexander (Montg'y)
Harrison, Rt Hon Walter


Cartwright, John
Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith


Clarke, Thomas
Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Holland, Stuart (Vauxhall)


Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S.)
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Cohen, Harry
Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)


Corbett, Robin
Hughes, Simon (Southwark)


Corbyn, Jeremy
Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)


Cox, Thomas (Tooting)
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Craigen, J. M.
Lamond, James


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Leadbitter, Ted


Cunningham, Dr John
Leighton, Ronald


Dalyell, Tam
Lewis, Terence (Worsley)


Davies, Ronald (Caerphilly)
Litherland, Robert


Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'ge H'l)
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Deakins, Eric
Lofthouse, Geoffrey


Dewar, Donald
McDonald, Dr Oonagh






McGuire, Michael
Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)


Mackenzie, Rt Hon Gregor
Rogers, Allan


Madden, Max
Rooker, J. W.


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Ross, Ernest (Dundee W)


Maynard, Miss Joan
Rowlands, Ted


Meacher, Michael
Sheerman, Barry


Michie, William
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Mikardo, Ian
Short, Ms Clare (Ladywood)


Millan, Rt Hon Bruce
Silkin, Rt Hon J.


Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)
Skinner, Dennis


Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)
Smith, C.(Isl'ton S &amp; F'bury)


Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Snape, Peter


Nellist, David
Soley, Clive


Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon
Spearing, Nigel


O'Brien, William
Straw, Jack


Park, George
Thompson, J. (Wansbeck)


Parry, Robert
Wainwright, R,


Pavitt, Laurie
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Pendry, Tom
Wareing, Robert


Pike, Peter
Welsh, Michael


Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)
Winnick, David


Prescott, John
Woodall, Alec


Redmond, M.
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Rees, Rt Hon M. (Leeds S)



Richardson, Ms Jo
Tellers for the Ayes:


Roberts, Allan (Bootle)
Mr. James Hamilton and


Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)
Mr. Allen McKay




NOES


Adley, Robert
Cockeram, Eric


Aitken, Jonathan
Colvin, Michael


Alexander, Richard
Conway, Derek


Amess, David
Cope, John


Ancram, Michael
Cranborne, Viscount


Ashby, David
Crouch, David


Aspinwall, Jack
Currie, Mrs Edwina


Atkins, Robert (South Ribble)
Dicks, Terry


Atkinson, David (B'm'th E)
Dorrell, Stephen


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Vall'y)
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.


Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)
Dover, Den


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Durant, Tony


Batiste, Spencer
Eggar, Tim


Bendall, Vivian
Emery, Sir Peter


Berry, Sir Anthony
Fallon, Michael


Best, Keith
Farr, Sir John


Bevan, David Gilroy
Favell, Anthony


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Fenner, Mrs Peggy


Biggs-Davison, Sir John
Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Forman, Nigel


Body, Richard
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Forth, Eric


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Fox, Marcus


Bottomley, Peter
Franks, Cecil


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Fraser, Peter (Angus East)


Bowden, A. (Brighton K'to'n)
Freeman, Roger


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Fry, Peter


Boyson, Dr Rhodes
Gale, Roger


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Gardiner, George (Reigate)


Bright, Graham
Goodhart, Sir Philip


Brinton, Tim
Goodlad, Alastair


Brooke, Hon Peter
Gorst, John


Brown, M. (Brigg &amp; Cl'thpes)
Gow, Ian


Browne, John
Grant, Sir Anthony


Bruinvels, Peter
Green way, Harry


Buck, Sir Antony
Gregory, Conal


Budgen, Nick
Griffiths, E. (B'y St Edm'ds)


Bulmer, Esmond
Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)


Butcher, John
Grist, Ian


Butterfill, John
Grylls, Michael


Carlisle, John (N Luton)
Gummer, John Selwyn


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Carttiss, Michael
Hampson, Dr Keith


Cash, William
Hanley, Jeremy


Chalker, Mrs Lynda
Hannam, John


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Harris, David


Chapman, Sydney
Harvey, Robert


Chope, Christopher
Hawkins, Sir Paul (SW N'folk)


Churchill, W. S.
Hawksley, Warren


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Hayes, J.


Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)
Hayhoe, Barney





Heathcoat-Amory, David
Norris, Steven


Heddle, John
Onslow, Cranley


Henderson, Barry
Oppenheim, Phillip


Hill, James
Osborn, Sir John


Hind, Kenneth
Ottaway, Richard


Hirst, Michael
Page, Sir John (Harrow W)


Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)
Page, Richard (Herts SW)


Holland, Sir Philip (Gedling)
Patten, John (Oxford)


Holt, Richard
Pattie, Geoffrey


Hooson, Tom
Pawsey, James


Hordern, Peter
Percival, Rt Hon Sir Ian


Howard, Michael
Pollock, Alexander


Howarth, Alan (Stratf'd-on-A)
Porter, Barry


Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)
Powell, William (Corby)


Howell, Ralph (N Norfolk)
Powley, John


Hubbard-Miles, Peter
Proctor, K. Harvey


Hunt, David (Wirral)
Raffan, Keith


Hunter, Andrew
Renton, Tim


Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas
Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas


Jackson, Robert
Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)


Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick
Robinson, Mark (N'port W)


Jessel, Toby
Roe, Mrs Marion


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Rumbold, Mrs Angela


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Ryder, Richard


Jones, Robert (W Herts)
Sackville, Hon Thomas


Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine
Sainsbury, Hon Timothy


Key, Robert
Sayeed, Jonathan


King, Roger (B'ham N'field)
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


Knight, Gregory (Derby N)
Shelton, William (Streatham)


Knight, Mrs Jill (Edgbaston)
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Lamont, Norman
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)


Latham, Michael
Shersby, Michael


Lawler, Geoffrey
Silvester, Fred


Lawrence, Ivan
Sims, Roger


Lee, John (Pendle)
Skeet, T. H. H.


Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)


Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Lewis, Sir Kenneth (Stamf'd)
Speller, Tony


Lightbown, David
Spencer, Derek


Lilley, Peter
Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)


Lloyd, Peter, (Fareham)
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Lord, Michael
Squire, Robin


Lyell, Nicholas
Stanbrook, Ivor


McCurley, Mrs Anna
Steen, Anthony


MacGregor, John
Stern, Michael


MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire)
Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)


MacKay, John (Argyll &amp; Bute)
Stevens, Martin (Fulham)


Maclean, David John
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


Madel, David
Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)


Major, John
Stewart, Ian (N Hertf'dshire)


Malins, Humfrey
Stradling Thomas, J.


Malone, Gerald
Sumberg, David


Maples, John
Taylor, John (Solihull)


Marland, Paul
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Marlow, Antony
Temple-Morris, Peter


Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Thomas, Rt Hon Peter


Mates, Michael
Thompson, Donald (Calder V)


Maude, Hon Francis
Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)


Mawhinney, Dr Brian
Thorne, Neil (Ilford S)


Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Thornton, Malcolm


Mayhew, Sir Patrick
Thurnham, Peter


Mellor, David
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Merchant, Piers
Trippier, David


Miller, Hal (B'grove)
Trotter, Neville


Mills, Iain (Meriden)
Twinn, Dr Ian


Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon)
van Straubenzee, Sir W.


Miscampbell, Norman
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Mitchell, David (NW Hants)
Viggers, Peter


Moate, Roger
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Monro, Sir Hector
Waldegrave, Hon William


Montgomery, Fergus
Walden, George


Moore, John
Waller, Gary


Mudd, David
Ward, John


Murphy, Christopher
Wardle, C. (Bexhill)


Neale, Gerrard
Warren, Kenneth


Needham, Richard
Watson, John


Nelson, Anthony
Watts, John


Neubert, Michael
Wells, Bowen (Hertford)


Nicholls, Patrick
Wheeler, John


Normanton, Tom
Whitfield, John






Whitney, Raymond
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Wiggin, Jerry



Wilkinson, John
Tellers for the Noes:


Wolfson, Mark
Mr. Ian Lang and


Wood, Timothy
Mr. Archie Hamilton.


Woodcock, Michael

Question accordingly negatived.

Amendment (g) proposed to Lords amendment No. 10, in line 26, at end, add—
'() Any costs or charges following upon the council in question, or upon the person to whom the land is to be disposed, arising as a result of—

(a) delay by the Secretary of State in granting consent under this section, or
(b) refusal by the Secretary of State to grant consent under this section, or
(c) any conditions imposed by the Secretary of State in granting consent under this section

shall be re-imbursed by the Secretary of State.'.—[Mr. Beith.]

Question put,That amendment (g) to the Lords amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 132, Noes 268.

Division No. 460]
[2.9 am


AYES


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Flannery, Martin


Ashdown, Paddy
Foster, Derek


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Fraser, J. (Norwood)


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald


Barnett, Guy
Garrett, W. E.


Barron, Kevin
George, Bruce


Beckett, Mrs Margaret
Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John


Bell, Stuart
Godman, Dr Norman


Benn, Tony
Golding, John


Bennett, A. (Dent'n &amp; Red'sh)
Hamilton, James (M'well N)


Bermingham, Gerald
Hancock, Mr. Michael


Blair, Anthony
Hardy, Peter


Boyes, Roland
Harman, Ms Harriet


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Harrison, Rt Hon Walter


Brown, N. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne E)
Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith


Brown, R. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne N)
Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)


Bruce, Malcolm
Holland, Stuart (Vauxhall)


Buchan, Norman
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Caborn, Richard
Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)


Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd &amp; M)
Hughes, Simon (Southwark)


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)


Canavan, Dennis
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Carlile, Alexander (Montg'y)
Lamond, James


Cartwright, John
Leighton, Ronald


Clarke, Thomas
Lewis, Terence (Worsley)


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Litherland, Robert


Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S.)
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Cohen, Harry
Lofthouse, Geoffrey


Cook, Frank (Stockton North)
McDonald, Dr Oonagh


Corbett, Robin
McGuire, Michael


Corbyn, Jeremy
McKay, Allen (Penistone)


Cowans, Harry
Mackenzie, Rt Hon Gregor


Cox, Thomas (Tooting)
McWilliam, John


Craigen, J. M.
Madden, Max


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Cunningham, Dr John
Maynard, Miss Joan


Dalyell, Tam
Meacher, Michael


Davies, Ronald (Caerphilly)
Michie, William


Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'ge H'l)
Mikardo, Ian


Deakins, Eric
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce


Dewar, Donald
Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)


Dixon, Donald
Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)


Dobson, Frank
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)


Dormand, Jack
Nellist, David


Dubs, Alfred
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.
O'Brien, William


Eadie, Alex
Park, George


Eastham, Ken
Parry, Robert


Evans, John (St. Helens N)
Pavitt, Laurie


Ewing, Harry
Pendry, Tom


Fatchett, Derek
Pike, Peter


Fisher, Mark
Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)





Prescott, John
Snape, Peter


Rees, Rt Hon M. (Leeds S)
Soley, Clive


Richardson, Ms Jo
Spearing, Nigel


Roberts, Allan (Bootle)
Straw, Jack


Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)
Thompson, J. (Wansbeck)


Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)
Wainwright, R.


Rogers, Allan
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Rooker, J. W.
Wareing, Robert


Ross, Ernest (Dundee W)
Welsh, Michael


Rowlands, Ted
Winnick, David


Sheerman, Barry
Woodall, Alec


Shore, Rt Hon Peter
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Short, Ms Clare (Ladywood)



Silkin, Rt Hon J.
Tellers for the Ayes:


Skinner, Dennis
Mr. David Alton and


Smith, C.(Isl'ton S &amp; F'bury)
Mr. A. J. Beith.




NOES


Adley, Robert
Eggar, Tim


Aitken, Jonathan
Emery, Sir Peter


Alexander, Richard
Fallon, Michael


Amess, David
Farr, Sir John


Ashby, David
Favell, Anthony


Aspinwall, Jack
Fenner, Mrs Peggy


Atkins, Robert (South Ribble)
Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey


Atkinson, David (B'm'th E)
Forman, Nigel


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Vall'y)
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)
Forth, Eric


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Fox, Marcus


Batiste, Spencer
Franks, Cecil


Bendall, Vivian
Fraser, Peter (Angus East)


Berry, Sir Anthony
Freeman, Roger


Best, Keith
Fry, Peter


Bevan, David Gilroy
Gale, Roger


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Gardiner, George (Reigate)


Biggs-Davison, Sir John
Goodhart, Sir Philip


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Goodlad, Alastair


Body, Richard
Gorst, John


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Gow, Ian


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Grant, Sir Anthony


Bottomley, Peter
Greenway, Harry


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Gregory, Conal


Bowden, A. (Brighton K'to'n)
Griffiths, E. (B'y St Edm'ds)


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)


Boyson, Dr Rhodes
Grist, Ian


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Grylls, Michael


Bright, Graham
Gummer, John Selwyn


Brinton, Tim
Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)


Brooke, Hon Peter
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Brown, M. (Brigg &amp; Cl'thpes)
Hampson, Dr Keith


Browne, John
Hanley, Jeremy


Bruinvels, Peter
Hannam,John


Buck, Sir Antony
Harris, David


Budgen, Nick
Harvey, Robert


Bulmer, Esmond
Hawkins, Sir Paul (SW N'folk)


Butcher, John
Hawksley, Warren


Butterfill, John
Hayes, J.


Carlisle, John (N Luton)
Hayhoe, Barney


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Carttiss, Michael
Heddle, John


Cash, William
Henderson, Barry


Chalker, Mrs Lynda
Hind, Kenneth


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Hirst, Michael


Chapman, Sydney
Holland, Sir Philip (Gedling)


Chope, Christopher
Holt, Richard


Churchill, W. S.
Hooson, Tom


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Hordern, Peter


Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)
Howard, Michael


Cockeram, Eric
Howarth, Alan (Stratf'd-on-A)


Colvin, Michael
Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)


Conway, Derek
Howell, Ralph (N Norfolk)


Cope, John
Hubbard-Miles, Peter


Cranborne, Viscount
Hunter, Andrew


Crouch, David
Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Jackson, Robert


Dicks, Terry
Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick


Dorrell, Stephen
Jessel, Toby


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Dover, Den
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Durant, Tony
Jones, Robert (W Herts)






Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine
Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon)


Key, Robert
Miscampbell, Norman


King, Roger (B'ham N'field)
Mitchell, David (NW Hants)


Knight, Gregory (Derby N)
Moate, Roger


Knight, Mrs Jill (Edgbaston)
Monro, Sir Hector


Lamont, Norman
Montgomery, Fergus


Lang, Ian
Moore, John


Latham, Michael
Mudd, David


Lawler, Geoffrey
Murphy, Christopher


Lawrence, Ivan
Neale, Gerrard


Lee, John (Pendle)
Needham, Richard


Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)
Nelson, Anthony


Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Neubert, Michael


Lewis, Sir Kenneth (Stamf'd)
Nicholls, Patrick


Lightbown, David
Normanton, Tom


Lilley, Peter
Norris, Steven


Lloyd, Peter, (Fareham)
Onslow, Cranley


Lord, Michael
Oppenheim, Phillip


Lyell, Nicholas
Osborn, Sir John


McCurley, Mrs Anna
Ottaway, Richard


MacGregor, John
Page, Sir John (Harrow W)


MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire)
Page, Richard (Herts SW)


MacKay, John (Argyll &amp; Bute)
Patten, John (Oxford)


Maclean, David John
Pattie, Geoffrey


Madel, David
Pawsey, James


Major, John
Percival, Rt Hon Sir Ian


Malins, Humfrey
Pollock, Alexander


Malone, Gerald
Porter, Barry


Maples, John
Powell, William (Corby)


Marland, Paul
Powley, John


Marlow, Antony
Proctor, K. Harvey


Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Raffan, Keith


Mates, Michael
Ronton, Tim


Maude, Hon Francis
Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas


Mawhinney, Dr Brian
Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)


Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Robinson, Mark (N'port W)


Mayhew, Sir Patrick
Roe, Mrs Marion


Mellor, David
Rumbold, Mrs Angela


Merchant, Piers
Ryder, Richard


Miller, Hal (B'grove)
Sackville, Hon Thomas


Mills, Iain (Meriden)
Sainsbury, Hon Timothy




Sayeed, Jonathan
Thornton, Malcolm


Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)
Thurnham, Peter


Shelton, William (Streatham)
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Trippier, David


Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)
Trotter, Neville


Shersby, Michael
Twinn, Dr Ian


Silvester, Fred
van Straubenzee, Sir W.


Sims, Roger
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Skeet, T. H. H.
Viggers, Peter


Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)
Waldegrave, Hon William


Speller, Tony
Walden, George


Spencer, Derek
Waller, Gary


Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)
Ward, John


Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)
Wardle, C. (Bexhill)


Squire, Robin
Warren, Kenneth


Stanbrook, Ivor
Watson, John


Steen, Anthony
Watts, John


Stern, Michael
Wells, Bowen (Hertford)


Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)
Wheeler, John


Stevens, Martin (Fulham)
Whitfield, John


Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)
Whitney, Raymond


Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)
Wiggin, Jerry


Stewart, Ian (N Hertf'dshire)
Wilkinson, John


Stradling Thomas, J.
Wolfson, Mark


Sumberg, David
Wood, Timothy


Taylor, John (Solihull)
Woodcock, Michael


Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Temple-Morris, Peter



Thomas, Rt Hon Peter
Tellers for the Noes:


Thompson, Donald (Calder V)
Mr. David Hunt and


Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)
Mr. Douglas Hogg.


Thorne, Neil (Ilford S)

5
". — (1) Except with the consent of the Secretary of State neither the Greater London Council nor a metropolitan county council shall after the passing of this Act enter into a contract which (with or without other matters) provides for—



(a) the carrying out by or for the council of building or engineering works in respect of which the consideration exceeds £250,000;


10
b) the carrying out by or for the council of maintenance works in respect of which the consideration exceeds £100,000;



(c) the supply by or to the council of goods in respect of which the consideration exceeds £100,000;


15
(d) the provision by or to the council of administrative, professional or technical services in respect of which the consideration exceeds £100,000; or


20
(e) the use by another person of any vehicle, plant or appararus of the council, or the use by the council of any vehicle, plant or apparatus of another person, in respect of which the consideration exceeds £100,000.



(2) Where the consideration or any of the consideration under a contract is not in money, the limits specified in subsection


25
(1) above shall apply to the value of the consideration; and any necessary apportionment shall be made of consideration which is referable to two or more of the matters mentioned in that subsection or to any of them and other matters.


30
(3) For the purpose of determining whether a limit specified in subsection (1) above is exceeded in the case of any contract, there shall be taken into account the consideration under any other contract or contracts entered into by the council in the previous twelve months (but not earlier than the passing of this Act) so far as relating, in a case wifhin paragraph (a) or (b) of that subsection, to works of the same or a similar description to be carried out on the same or adjacent land or, in a case within paragraph (c), (d) or (e) of that subsection, to goods, services, vehicles, plant or apparatus of the same or a similar description.

Question accordingly negatived.

Lords amendment No. 10 agreed to.

Lords amendment: No. 11, after clause 8, and after the clause last inserted, insert the following new clause— Control of contracts—

40
(4) Any consent under this section may be given either in respect of a particular contract or in respect of contracts of any class or. description and either unconditionally or subject to conditions.


45
(5) A contract shall not be void by reason only that it has been entered into in contravention of this section and a person entering into a contract with a council to which this section applies shall not be concerned to enquire whether any consent required by this section has been given or complied with.


50
(6) In this section— "building or engineering works" includes any work involved in the laying out of land, the improvement of land or buildings, the construction or improvement of a highway and any work of demolition;



"maintenance works" includes work for the maintenance or repair of land, buildings or highways, the gritting of a highway and the clearing of snow from a highway." —[Mr. Patrick Jenkin.]

Question accordingly negatived.

Amendment (l) proposed to Lords amendment No. 11, in line 53, at end add——
'() Nothing in this section shall apply to the Greater London Council when acting as an education authority for the Inner London area pursuant to section 30 of the London Government Act 1963.'.—[Mr. Simon Hughes.]

Question put, That amendment (l) to the Lords amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 129, Noes 264.

Division No. 461]
[2.20 am


AYES


Alton, David
Fatchett, Derek


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Fisher, Mark


Ashdown, Paddy
Flannery, Martin


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Foster, Derek


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Fraser, J. (Norwood)


Barnett, Guy
Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald


Barron, Kevin
Garrett, W. E.


Beckett, Mrs Margaret
George, Bruce


Bell, Stuart
Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John


Benn, Tony
Godman, Dr Norman


Bennett, A. (Dent'n &amp; Red'sh)
Golding, John


Bermingham, Gerald
Hamilton, James (M'well N)


Blair, Anthony
Hancock, Mr. Michael


Boyes, Roland
Hardy, Peter


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Harman, Ms Harriet


Brown, N. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne E)
Harrison, Rt Hon Walter


Brown, R. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne N)
Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith


Bruce, Malcolm
Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)


Buchan, Norman
Holland, Stuart (Vauxhall)


Caborn, Richard
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd &amp; M)
Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Hughes, Simon (Southwark)


Canavan, Dennis
Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)


Carlile, Alexander (Montg'y)
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Clarke, Thomas
Lamond, James


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Leighton, Ronald


Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S.)
Lewis, Terence (Worsley)


Cohen, Harry
Litherland, Robert


Cook, Frank (Stockton North)
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Corbett, Robin
Lofthouse, Geoffrey


Corbyn, Jeremy
McGuire, Michael


Cox, Thomas (Tooting)
McKay, Allen (Penistone)


Craigen, J. M.
Mackenzie, Rt Hon Gregor


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Madden, Max


Cunningham, Dr John
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Dalyell, Tam
Maynard, Miss Joan


Davies, Ronald (Caerphilly)
Meacher, Michael


Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'ge H'I)
Michie, William


Deakins, Eric
Mikardo, Ian


Dewar, Donald
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce


Dixon, Donald
Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)


Dobson, Frank
Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)


Dormand, Jack
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)


Dubs, Alfred
Nellist, David


Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


Eadie, Alex
O'Brien, William


Eastham, Ken
Park, George


Evans, John (St. Helens N)
Parry, Robert


Ewing, Harry98
Pavitt, Laurie





Pendry, Tom
Smith, C.(Isl'ton S &amp; F'bury)


Pike, Peter
Snape, Peter


Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)
Soley, Clive


Prescott, John
Spearing, Nigel


Rees, Rt Hon M. (Leeds S)
Straw, Jack


Richardson, Ms Jo
Thompson, J. (Wansbeck)


Roberts, Allan (Bootle)
Wainwright, R.


Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)
Wareing, Robert


Rogers, Allan
Welsh, Michael


Rooker, J. W.
Winnick, David


Ross, Ernest (Dundee W)
Woodall, Alec


Rowlands, Ted
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Sheerman, Barry
Tellers for the Ayes:


Shore, Rt Hon Peter
Mr. John Cartwright and


Short, Ms Clare (Ladywood)
Mr. A. J. Beith


Silkin, Rt Hon J.



Skinner, Dennis





NOES


Adley, Robert
Carttiss, Michael


Aitken, Jonathan
Cash, William


Alexander, Richard
Chalker, Mrs Lynda


Amess, David
Channon, Rt Hon Paul


Ashby, David
Chapman, Sydney


Aspinwall, Jack
Chope, Christopher


Atkins, Robert (South Ribble)
Churchill, W. S.


Atkinson, David (B'm'th E)
Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Vall'y)
Cockeram, Eric


Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)
Colvin, Michael


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Conway, Derek


Batiste, Spencer
Cope, John


Bendall, Vivian
Cranborne, Viscount


Berry, Sir Anthony
Crouch, David


Best, Keith
Currie, Mrs Edwina


Bevan, David Gilroy
Dicks, Terry


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Dorrell, Stephen


Biggs-Davison, Sir John
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Dover, Den


Body, Richard
Durant, Tony


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Eggar, Tim


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Emery, Sir Peter


Bottomley, Peter
Fallon, Michael


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Farr, Sir John


Bowden, A. (Brighton K'to'n)
Favell, Anthony


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Fenner, Mrs Peggy


Boyson, Dr Rhodes
Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Forman, Nigel


Bright, Graham
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Brinton, Tim
Forth, Eric


Brooke, Hon Peter
Fox, Marcus


Brown, M. (Brigg &amp; Cl'thpes)
Franks, Cecil


Browne, John
Fraser, Peter (Angus East)


Bruinvels, Peter
Freeman, Roger


Buck, Sir Antony
Fry, Peter


Budgen, Nick
Gale, Roger


Bulmer, Esmond
Gardiner, George (Reigate)


Butcher, John
Goodhart, Sir Philip


Butterfill, John
Goodlad, Alastair


Carlisle, John (N Luton)
Gorst, John


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Gow, Ian






Grant, Sir Anthony
Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon)


Greenway, Harry
Miscampbell, Norman


Gregory, Conal
Mitchell, David (NW Hants)


Griffiths, E. (B'y St Edm'ds)
Moate, Roger


Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)
Monro, Sir Hector


Grist, Ian
Montgomery, Fergus


Grylls, Michael
Moore, John


Gummer, John Selwyn
Mudd, David


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Murphy, Christopher


Hampson, Dr Keith
Neale, Gerrard


Hanley, Jeremy
Needham, Richard


Hannam, John
Nelson, Anthony


Harris, David
Neubert, Michael


Harvey, Robert
Nicholls, Patrick


Hayes, J.
Normanton, Tom


Hayhoe, Barney
Norris, Steven


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Onslow, Cranley


Heddle, John
Oppenheim, Phillip


Henderson, Barry
Osborn, Sir John


Hind, Kenneth
Ottaway, Richard


Hirst, Michael
Page, Sir John (Harrow W)


Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)
Page, Richard (Herts SW)


Holland, Sir Philip (Gedling)
Patten, John (Oxford)


Holt, Richard
Pattie, Geoffrey


Hooson, Tom
Pawsey, James


Hordern, Peter
Pollock, Alexander


Howard, Michael
Porter, Barry


Howarth, Alan (Stratf'd-on-A)
Powell, William (Corby)


Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)
Powley, John


Howell, Ralph (N Norfolk)
Proctor, K. Harvey


Hubbard-Miles, Peter
Raffan, Keith


Hunt, David (Wirral)
Renton, Tim


Hunter, Andrew
Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas


Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas
Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)


Jackson, Robert
Robinson, Mark (N'port W)


Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick
Roe, Mrs Marion


Jessel, Toby
Rumbold, Mrs Angela


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Ryder, Richard


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Sackville, Hon Thomas


Jones, Robert (W Herts)
Sainsbury, Hon Timothy


Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine
Sayeed, Jonathan


Key, Robert
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


King, Roger (B'ham N'field)
Shelton, William (Streatham)


Knight, Gregory (Derby N)
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Knight, Mrs Jill (Edgbaston)
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)


Lamont, Norman
Shersby, Michael


Lang, Ian
Silvester, Fred


Latham, Michael
Sims, Roger


Lawler, Geoffrey
Skeet, T. H. H.


Lawrence, Ivan
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)


Lee, John (Pendle)
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)
Speller, Tony


Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Spencer, Derek


Lewis, Sir Kenneth (Stamf'd)
Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)


Lightbown, David
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Lilley, Peter
Squire, Robin


Lloyd, Peter, (Fareham)
Stanbrook, Ivor


Lord, Michael
Steen, Anthony


Lyell, Nicholas
Stern, Michael


McCurley, Mrs Anna
Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)


MacGregor, John
Stevens, Martin (Fulham)


MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire)
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


MacKay, John (Argyll &amp; Bute)
Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)


Maclean, David John
Stewart, Ian (N Hertf'dshire)


Madel, David
Stradling Thomas, J.


Malins, Humfrey
Sumberg, David


Malone, Gerald
Taylor, John (Solihull)


Maples, John
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Marland, Paul
Temple-Morris, Peter


Marlow, Antony
Thomas, Rt Hon Peter


Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Thompson, Donald (Calder V)


Mates, Michael
Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)


Maude, Hon Francis
Thorne, Neil (Ilford S)


Mawhinney, Dr Brian
Thornton, Malcolm


Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Thurnham, Peter


Mayhew, Sir Patrick
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Mellor, David
Trippier, David


Merchant, Piers
Trotter, Neville


Miller, Hal (B'grove)
Twinn, Dr Ian


Mills, Iain (Meriden)
van Straubenzee, Sir W.





Vaughan, Sir Gerard
Whitfield, John


Viggers, Peter
Whitney, Raymond


Wakeham, Rt Hon John
Wiggin, Jerry


Waldegrave, Hon William
Wilkinson, John


Walden, George
Wolfson, Mark


Waller, Gary
Wood, Timothy


Ward, John
Woodcock, Michael


Wardle, C. (Bexhill)
Yeo, Tim


Warren, Kenneth
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Watson, John



Watts, John
Tellers for the Noes:


Wells, Bowen (Hertford)
Mr. Archie Hamilton and


Wheeler, John
Mr. John Major.

Division No. 462]
[2.31 am


AYES


Alton, David
Flannery, Martin


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Foster, Derek


Ashdown, Paddy
Fraser, J. (Norwood)


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Garrett, W. E.


Barnett, Guy
George, Bruce


Barron, Kevin
Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John


Beckett, Mrs Margaret
Godman, Dr Norman


Bell, Stuart
Golding, John


Benn, Tony
Hamilton, James (M'well N)


Bennett, A. (Dent'n &amp; Red'sh)
Hancock, Mr. Michael


Bermingham, Gerald
Hardy, Peter


Blair, Anthony
Harman, Ms Harrlet


Boyes, Roland
Harrison, Rt Hon Walter


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith


Brown, N. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne E)
Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)


Brown, R. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne N)
Holland, Stuart (Vauxhall)


Bruce, Malcolm
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Buchan, Norman
Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)


Caborn, Richard
Hughes, Simon (Southwark)


Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd &amp; M)
Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Canavan, Dennis
Lamond, James


Carlile, Alexander (Montg'y)
Leighton, Ronald


Clarke, Thomas
Lewis, Terence (Worsley)


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Litherland, Robert


Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S.)
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Cohen, Harry
Lofthouse, Geoffrey


Cook, Frank (Stockton North)
McDonald, Dr Oonagh


Corbett, Robin
McGuire, Michael


Corbyn, Jeremy
McKay, Allen (Penistone)


Cox, Thomas (Tooting)
Mackenzie, Rt Hon Gregor


Craigen, J. M.
Madden, Max


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Cunningham, Dr John
Maynard, Miss Joan


Dalyell, Tam
Meacher, Michael


Davies, Ronald (Caerphilly)
Michie, William


Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'ge H'I)
Mikardo, Ian


Deakins, Eric
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce


Dewar, Donald
Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)


Dixon, Donald
Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)


Dobson, Frank
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)


Dormand, Jack
Nellist, David


Dubs, Alfred
O'Brien, William


Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.
Park, George


Eadie, Alex
Parry, Robert


Eastham, Ken
Pavitt, Laurie


Evans, John (St. Helens N)
Pendry, Tom


Ewing, Harry
Pike, Peter


Fatchett, Derek
Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)


Fisher, Mark
Prescott, John






Rees, Rt Hon M. (Leeds S)
Soley, Clive


Richardson, Ms Jo
Spearing, Nigel


Roberts, Allan (Bootle)
Straw, Jack


Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)
Thompson, J. (Wansbeck)


Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)
Wainwright, R.


Rogers, Allan
Warden, Gareth (Gower)


Rooker, J. W.
Wareing, Robert


Ross, Ernest (Dundee W)
Welsh, Michael


Rowlands, Ted
Winnick, David


Sheerman, Barry
Woodall, Alec


Shore, Rt Hon Peter
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Short, Ms Clare (Ladywood)



Silkin, Rt Hon J.
Tellers for the Ayes:


Skinner, Dennis
Mr. John Cartwright and


Smith, C.(Isl'ton S &amp; F'bury)
Mr. A. J. Beith.


Snape, Peter





NOES


Adley, Robert
Emery, Sir Peter


Aitken, Jonathan
Fallon, Michael


Alexander, Richard
Farr, Sir John


Amess, David
Favell, Anthony


Ashby, David
Fenner, Mrs Peggy


Aspinwall, Jack
Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey


Atkins, Robert (South Ribble)
Forman, Nigel


Atkinson, David (B'm'th E)
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Vall'y)
Forth, Eric


Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)
Fox, Marcus


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Franks, Cecil


Batiste, Spencer
Fraser, Peter (Angus East)


Bendall, Vivian
Freeman, Roger


Berry, Sir Anthony
Fry, Peter


Best, Keith
Gale, Roger


Bevan, David Gilroy
Gardiner, George (Reigate)


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Goodhart, Sir Philip


Biggs-Davison, Sir John
Goodlad, Alastair


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Gorst, John


Body, Richard
Gow, Ian


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Grant, Sir Anthony


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Greenway, Harry


Bottomley, Peter
Gregory, Conal


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Griffiths, E. (B'y St Edm'ds)


Bowden, A. (Brighton K'to'n)
Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Grist, Ian


Boyson, Dr Rhodes
Grylls, Michael


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Gummer, John Selwyn


Bright, Graham
Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)


Brinton, Tim
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Brooke, Hon Peter
Hampson, Dr Keith


Brown, M. (Brigg &amp; Cl'thpes)
Hanley, Jeremy


Browne, John
Hannam, John


Bruinvels, Peter
Harris, David


Buck, Sir Antony
Harvey, Robert


Budgen, Nick
Hawksley, Warren


Bulmer, Esmond
Hayes, J.


Butcher, John
Hayhoe, Barney


Butterfill, John
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Carlisle, John (N Luton)
Heddle, John


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Henderson, Barry


Carttiss, Michael
Hind, Kenneth


Cash, William
Hirst, Michael


Chalker, Mrs Lynda
Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Holland, Sir Philip (Gedling)


Chapman, Sydney
Holt, Richard


Chope, Christopher
Hooson, Tom


Churchill, W. S.
Hordern, Peter


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Howard, Michael


Cockeram, Eric
Howarth, Alan (Stratf'd-on-A)


Colvin, Michael
Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)


Conway, Derek
Howell, Ralph (N Norfolk)


Cope, John
Hubbard-Miles, Peter


Cranborne, Viscount
Hunter, Andrew


Crouch, David
Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Jackson, Robert


Dicks, Terry
Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick


Dorrell, Stephen
Jessel, Toby


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Dover, Den
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Durant, Tony
Jones, Robert (W Herts)


Eggar, Tim
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine





Key, Robert
Robinson, Mark (N'port W)


King, Roger (B'ham N'field)
Roe, Mrs Marion


Knight, Gregory (Derby N)
Rumbold, Mrs Angela


Knight, Mrs Jill (Edgbaston)
Ryder, Richard


Lamont, Norman
Sackville, Hon Thomas


Latham, Michael
Sainsbury, Hon Timothy


Lawler, Geoffrey
Sayeed, Jonathan


Lawrence, Ivan
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


Lee, John (Pendle)
Shelton, William (Streatham)


Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)


Lewis, Sir Kenneth (Stamf'd)
Shersby, Michael


Lightbown, David
Silvester, Fred


Lilley, Peter
Sims, Roger


Lloyd, Peter, (Fareham)
Skeet, T. H. H.


Lord, Michael
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)


Lyell, Nicholas
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


McCurley, Mrs Anna
Speller, Tony


MacGregor, John
Spencer, Derek


MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire)
Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)


MacKay, John (Argyll &amp; Bute)
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Maclean, David John
Squire, Robin


Madel, David
Stanbrook, Ivor


Major, John
Steen, Anthony


Malins, Humfrey
Stern, Michael


Malone, Gerald
Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)


Maples, John
Stevens, Martin (Fulham)


Marland, Paul
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


Marlow, Antony
Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)


Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Stewart, Ian (N Hertf'dshire)


Mates, Michael
Stradling Thomas, J.


Maude, Hon Francis
Sumberg, David


Mawhinney, Dr Brian
Taylor, John (Solihull)


Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Mayhew, Sir Patrick
Temple-Morris, Peter


Mellor, David
Thomas, Rt Hon Peter


Merchant, Piers
Thompson, Donald (Calder V)


Miller, Hal (B'grove)
Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)


Mills, Iain (Meriden)
Thorne, Neil (Ilford S)


Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon)
Thornton, Malcolm


Miscampbell, Norman
Thurnham, Peter


Mitchell, David (NW Hants)
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Moate, Roger
Trippier, David


Montgomery, Fergus
Trotter, Neville


Moore, John
Twinn, Dr Ian


Mudd, David
van Straubenzee, Sir W.


Murphy, Christopher
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Neale, Gerrard
Viggers, Peter


Needham, Richard
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Nelson, Anthony
Waldegrave, Hon William


Neubert, Michael
Walden, George


Nicholls, Patrick
Waller, Gary


Normanton, Tom
Ward, John


Norris, Steven
Wardle, C. (Bexhill)


Onslow, Cranley
Warren, Kenneth


Oppenheim, Phillip
Watson, John


Osborn, Sir John
Watts, John


Ottaway, Richard
Wells, Bowen (Hertford)


Page, Sir John (Harrow W)
Wheeler, John


Page, Richard (Herts SW)
Whitfield, John


Patten, John (Oxford)
Whitney, Raymond


Pattie, Geoffrey
Wiggin, Jerry


Pawsey, James
Wilkinson, John


Pollock, Alexander
Wolfson, Mark


Porter, Barry
Wood, Timothy


Powell, William (Corby)
Woodcock, Michael


Powley, John
Yeo, Tim


Proctor, K. Harvey
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Raffan, Keith



Renton, Tim
Tellers for the Noes:


Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas
Mr. David Hunt and


Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)
Mr. Ian Lang.

Question accordingly negatived.

Lords amendment No. 11 agreed to.

New Clause

DISQUALIFICATION FOR CONTRAVENTION OF SECTIONS

(Control of disposals of land) and (Control of contracts)

Lords amendment: No. 12, after clause 8, and after the clause last inserted, insert the following new clause—

5
". —(1) If, on the application of a constituent council or a local government elector for the area of a constituent council, it appears to the High Court that the Greater London Council or a metropolitan county council has made a disposal in contravention of section (Control of disposals of land) above or entered into a contract in contravention of section (Control of contracts) above, the court may order any person responsible for authorising the disposal or contract who is, or was at the time of the conduct in question, a member of the council to be disqualified for being a member of that council and to be disqualified for a specified period for being a member of any other local authority.


10



(2) In sections 80(1)(e), S6(b) and 87(1)(d) of the principal Act references to Part III of the Local Government Finance Act 1982 shall include references to this section."—[Mr. Patrick Jenkin.]

Read a Second time.

Mr. Alex Carlile: I beg to move amendment (b) to the proposed Lords amendment, in line 2, leave out 'a constituent council or'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment (a) in line 11, leave out from 'council' to end of line 12 and insert 'provided that—

(a) no such order shall be made unless the Court is satisfied that the person acted unreasonably or in the knowledge that the disposal or contract was being authorised in contravention of Section 8 or Section 9 as the case may be; and
(b) no period of disqualification shall extend beyond 31st March, 1986. '.

Amendment (e) in line 11, leave out from 'council' to end of line 12.

Amendment (f) in line 12, after 'period', insert
'no longer than one year'.

Mr. Carlile: The purpose of amendment (b) is to put an end to political ping-pong from the public purse—to stop constituent councils from taking proceedings according to the provisions in the new clause, and thus making applications to the High Court for the disqualification of councillors for contravention of provisions considered earlier.
The provision is bound to be misused, if unaltered, as a political vehicle for Conservative-controlled councils to take proceedings in the High Court against the GLC; and it would also be used against metropolitan county councils.
Such proceedings should not be at the public expense. The power available to any local government elector to make an application to the High Court is sufficient. I would go further in criticising the provision. The new clause proposes draconian penalties against councillors when controls over the disposal of land or contracts have been breached. It places in serious jeopardy not only councillors who voted for the breach in question, but possibly those who voted against the breach and expenditure, or were absent.
On the application of a constituent council or local government elector, the new clause states that
any person responsible for authorising the disposal or contract
may be disqualified. The concept of that provision is offensive, for here we face the prospect of councillors

being disqualified not only from the council on which they are serving but from other councils which they might wish to join in future. They face being disqualified for aching in accordance with the democratic rights which they possess; in accordance with the manifesto on which they were elected; in accordance with the views of the majority of democratically elected councillors on that council; and even when they may be acting in the interests of the community at large.
2.45 am
The difference between the punitive provisions in Lords amendment No. 12 and other local government disqualification provisions is that no test is allowed for in this new clause which would enable the courts to look at the merits of the action which the councillors had taken.
Pursuant to Lords amendments Nos. 10 and 11, the Secretary of State has absolute discretion to rule whether such expenditure as is dealt with in those amendments should be permitted. Whereas in relation to other sanctions against councillors the court must apply a test in considering whether councillors had acted reasonably and in the interests of their constituents, here the only test which the court can apply is whether councillors had acted in breach of the discretionary ruling made by the Secretary of State pursuant to his powers under new clauses 10 and 11.
That brings us back to section 137 of the 1972 Act. Whereas it is open to an elector under that section to challenge the way in which the council has acted on the basis that it has not acted in the interests of the persons whose interests are provided for in section 137—and the court can, therefore, make a judgment on the merits—by comparison, under amendment No. 12 the court will have no power to look at the interests of the electors or the merits of the case. It can only decide whether the Secretary of State's diktat has been broken.
What is meant by "any person responsible?" Is it the chairman of the relevant committee, or the chairman of the council? Does it include absentee members of the council who may not have been at a meeting but who were members of the committee which reached the decision in question? Does it involve any member of the council or only those council members with knowledge of the decision? Or does it, as would appear to be the case, involve any person who may, by membership of any of the


seven councils, be responsible even in an indirect way for authorising the disposal or the contract? Here is yet another example of local accountability being removed.
It is clear from the speeches of Ministers that the Government no longer care about local accountability in relation to these seven councils. At least the Government should modify the proposals in this draconian new clause to enable the court hearing an application to consider whether the contract was good or bad, in the interests of the community, or otherwise. I urge the Government to consider the exclusion from the new clause of the words "any constituent authority" and to agree that it would be inappropriate for this political ping-pong from the public purse to continue.

Mr. Straw: About two years ago the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Fletcher), the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, was one of the Under-Secretaries of State for Scotland. In that capacity he made a series of decisions on the sale of Hamilton college of education which resulted in a loss to the taxpayer of £5 million. The Public Accounts Committee, in a unanimous report, censured the Scottish Education Department for its conduct. The words used by the PAC were damning by the standard of the language usually used by it. It said that the SED had adopted a more casual approach to the sale than the recommendations of the Halliday report demanded. It added:
SED failed to ensure that everything possible was done
to ensure that the property was sold at an adequate price. Had that Minister been a Labour councillor, he would have been subject to proceedings for surcharge or disqualifica-tion and, depending on the size of the surcharge, for bankruptcy and loss of office. As the hon. Gentleman was a Minister, he suffered no penalty.

Mr. Dobson: The hon. Gentleman was promoted.

Mr. Straw: As my hon. Friend says, the hon. Gentleman was promoted. I read in the Sunday newspapers, however, that it is now predicted that his elevation will not last for much longer. The fact that the £5 million was lost is incontrovertible, and I am not surprised that some Conservative Members have suggested, from a sedentary position, that I should refer to something else. It is a matter of deep discomfiture to Conservative Members to know that a Minister should have lost the taxpayer £5 million. Far from having to resign his office, he has been promoted. I ask my right hon. and hon. Friends to bear that in mind when they come to judge the amendments before the House.
The surcharge provisions for local government have always been overdraconian and inappropriate. They were introduced in the previous century when financial procedures for local authorities were elementary, to say the least. They were designed to ensure that there was no fraud or embezzlement by local councillors or the local officials of the councils.

Mr. Barry Henderson: Surely the hon. Gentleman will agree that the PAC's report stated that there had been no better offer made and that there had been no suggestion that other than the market value had been achieved in that instance.

Mr. Straw: I am glad to note that the hon. Gentleman has a copy of the report on his person. That shows good

briefing and is a sign of how sensitive Conservatives are to the charge that they have a Minister in their ranks who lost £5 million and was promoted for his pains. The SED
failed to ensure that everything possible was done
to ensure that there were adequate uses or development to market the property adequately. There may have been only one offer, but an offer at that level should have been refused. That is the way in which the loss arose. As I said, had that Minister been a Labour councillor of the GLC, he would never have heard the last of the loss and he would have rendered himself liable to surcharge, disqualification and bankruptcy.
The present rules for surcharge were introduced in the last century to provide measures against embezzlement and fraud. They have come to be used wholely inappropriately to control, in a belt and braces way, policy decisions of local authorities. These surcharge provisions have no parallel with the Government and other public industries. Certainly, they have no parallel with private companies, including public limited companies, and they have few parallels with other Western countries.
At least in the law as it has stood, one essential element has had to be removed before the disqualification provisions could apply—wilful misconduct in the way in which councillors acted. Lords amendment No. 12 will introduce an entirely new crime, involving no wilfulness, recklessness or negligence by members of an authority —the crime of strict liability. By virtue of their failure — and nothing else — to obtain the consent of the Secretary of State for the disposal of land or for any contract over £100,000, the members of an authority render themselves liable to proceedings for disqualifica-tion for any period from that council or any other authority.
Do Conservative Members, given that they have closed their ears to the damage that has been done during the passage of the Bill to our constitution and to people's liberties, find that acceptable? What would have been their reaction had a Labour Government proposed to take such draconian powers to shackle councillors who were simply following the mandates of their own authorities and seeking to ensure that local democracy operated properly?
There is no justification for these provisions. The existing disqualification surcharge provisions, the criminal law and the provision by which an elector can seek judicial review by the courts of the actions of a local authority or its councillors are sufficiently adequate to deal with any potential failure. To render councillors liable to disqualification for no greater crime than the fact that they have simply failed to obtain the consent of the Secretary of State is an outrage and should be resisted by the House.

Sir George Young: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
I hope that I can persuade the House to reject the sub-amendments. Amendment (b), which was moved by the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile), would remove an important part of the control system which is necessary to prevent irresponsible action by the outgoing authorities. The amendment would deny the constituent councils, boroughs and districts the right to apply to the High Court where they believe that the controls over land disposals and certain contracts may have been contravened. It is important that the constituent councils, in addition to local government electors, should have that right because they are the authorities that may


have to carry the consequences of the disposals and the contractual commitments which the control provisions are designed to cover. They are the authorities that will be well placed to learn of potential contraventions. It would be unfair and inefficient to rely solely on individual electors to spot those cases.
The provisions of Lords amendment No. 12 are modelled on the audit provisions of the Local Government Finance Act 1982. These provisions go further, and give the constituent councils the right to challenge. As I have explained, that is not only necessary but consistent with the approach adopted in other parts of the Bill. It is consistent especially with the provisions of clause 9(1), and rightly so, because the constituent councils are bound to have a close and legitimate interest in the affairs of the GLC and the MCCs in the run-up to abolition.
3 am
The hon. Gentleman asked which councillors might be responsible in the event of any breach of the legislation. The councillors responsible for a disposal or a contract are, as a question of fact, all those who voted for a proposal and all those who could have voted against it but who either abstained or failed to attend for no good reason. In any event, it will be for the elector or the constituent council bringing the action under the new clause to identify those who were prima facie responsible. The court has a discretion about whether to disqualify any member, and in coming to a decision it will of course have regard to all the circumstances of each case.
In dealing with the other amendments, moved by the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw), perhaps I might put Lords amendment No. 12 in context. It is an integral part of the series of measures which we have introduced in order to prevent irresponsible action by the outgoing authorities. The Lords amendment provides for the penalties which may be applied if the consent procedures are not complied with. It allows, but does not require, the High Court to order the disqualification of the person or persons responsible for contravening the consent requirements. The procedure is for a constituent council, or any local government elector for the area of a constituent council, to apply to the High Court. If it appears to the court that an abolition authority has made a disposal, or entered into a contract, in contravention of the new clauses, the councillors responsible may be disqualified if they were members of the authority at the time of the conduct in question.
The new clause proposed by the Lords amendment is modelled upon the audit provisions of the Local Government Finance Act 1982. But there are two significant differences. First, as we have just discussed, the court can act on an application from a constituent council as well as a local government elector. Secondly, there is no monetary penalty or surcharge. The only sanction is the possible disqualification of the member or members concerned.
The amendments seek to limit the High Court's discretion to make an order of disqualification if the new clauses are contravened and to limit the penalties if such an order is made.
The question whether a responsible person has acted unreasonably or in deliberate contravention of the provisions of the new clause, or whether he has acted in all good faith, is already one for the High Court to weigh. There is no express defence of "good faith" built into the

Lords amendment because it is not necessary. The High Court will have complete discretion whether to impose any sanction, and "good faith" would undoubtedly be a powerful plea in mitigation. So where a disposal had been made or a contract let in the honest but mistaken belief that no consent was required, or that it had already been obtained, I am sure that this would weigh very heavily with the court, which would judge each case on its merits. So from that point of view, amendment (a) is unnecessary.
All three amendments limit the penalties, and they are not acceptable. As amended by the other place, the Bill allows the court to disqualify the person responsible for being a member of the GLC or relevant MCC and for being for a specified time a member of any other local authority. That is a perfectly sensible maximum penalty for someone in a position of power and responsibility who has wilfully ignored or flouted an Act of Parliament. Indeed, some may argue that it is rather lenient But these amendments at most would limit the penalty co disqualification for up to one year from any other authority, in addition to that of which the individual is a member. That is the effect of amendment (f) to Lords amendment No. 12.

Mr. Straw: The hon. Gentleman referred to the power lying in the High Court where there had been wilful misconduct relating to the failure to obtain consent by a member of a council. But where in Lords amendment No. 12 is there any reference to wilful misconduct? It is an offence of strict liability.

Sir George Young: As I said, in listening to the case the court would take into account the circumstances surrounding each individual offence. It would take into account whether there was wilful misconduct or whether there was a genuine error. Obviously it would reach a conclusion about what was the appropriate penalty.
Amendments (a) and (e) to Lords amendment No. 12 are even more restrictive. The effect of those is to limit disqualification only to the GLC or the relevant MCC and then only until the day it is abolished. The GLC or MCC councillors can even then remain, or become, members of any other local authority. That does not constitute a credible deterrent to those who are determined to obstruct and impede the policies of Parliament, and who in some cases have threatened to resign from their councils, no doubt after they have done the maximum amount of damage.
If the provisions of the control clauses are to be effective, we simply must have penalties which will at least make those who are responsible think twice before they engage in obstructive activity.

Mr. Tony Banks: rose—

Sir George Young: I give way to the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks).

Mr. Banks: At a very appropriate moment. For the sake of my own peace of mind, if I as a member of the GLC am disqualified because I have fallen foul of this new minefield which the Secretary of State has prepared for me and my colleagues, will that in any way affect my membership of this House?

Sir George Young: No, it would not —[Interruption.] I notice that this may cause some dismay among my hon. Friends. The disqualification is from a


local authority, not from this House. If the hon. Gentleman can sleep peacefully at night in the light of that assurance, we will at least have made some progress.
For the reasons that I have outlined, I invite the House to reject the amendments.

Amendment (b) to Lords amendment No. 12 negatived.

Question put, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment:—

The House divided: Ayes 247, Noes 117.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Clause 9

ACCOUNTS AND FINANCIAL CONSULTATION

Lords amendment: No. 13, in page 8, line 7, at end insert
and about any other proposal that would involve expenditure in a subsequent financial year".

Mr. Waldegrave: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take Lords amendment No. 14.

Mr. Waldegrave: These amendments seek to introduce a sensible extension to a useful and reasonable requirement.
Subsection (2) requires the GLC and MCCs to consult their respective constituent councils about their proposed expenditure in 1985–86, and about the means of financing that expenditure. The borough councils, Common Council and district councils that will take on most of the functions of the GLC and MCCs have a direct interest in the financial affairs of the upper tier authorities in the run-up

to abolition. It is only reasonable, therefore, that they should have the opportunity to influence to some extent the financial situation that they will eventually take over.
That is the thinking behind the clause in general, and subsection (2) in particular. We have thought very carefully about how far that influence should go, and how best it can be assured. The provisions of clause 7 are not sufficient to ensure that the constituent councils know about the proposed expenditures, because that clause puts the onus on them to ask the right questions. Subsection (2) ensures that they are told about financial proposals at a stage where they can express their views, and where those views may—and, if the upper tier is responsible, will—be taken into account, without interfering with the GLC and MCCs' right — indeed duty — to set their own budgets.
However, subsection (2) as it stands requires consultation only about expenditure proposed for the financial year 1985–86. Constituent councils will be equally concerned about proposed commitments for expenditure in future years: commitments that they may well inherit. That is why amendment No. 13 extends the requirement to consult to cover proposed expenditure in financial years subsequent to 1985–86.
The requirement to consult about proposed future commitments will be subject, as is the requirement for 1985–86 expenditure, to subsection (3)(b). That is, in complying with the duty, the GLC and MCCs shall have regard to any guidance issued by the Secretary of State. Such guidance could, for example, recommend that the constituent councils need be consulted specifically only in. respect of major items of proposed future expenditure. However the existing GLC will be responsible for only one more budget, that for 1985–86. Hence the consequential amendment—No. 14—to clause 9(3)(a).
The amendments give the constituent councils the opportunity to have a fair say about any proposed expenditure that will eventually become their responsibility.

Mr. Simon Hughes: I am sure that the House will be delighted to know that we do not propose to divide on these amendments. They at least bring some consistency into what the Government are now proposing, although only an internal consistency, as they are not consistent with everything else that the Government have been doing. there is just one appropriate comment to make. These amendments will make more clearly possible consultation by the MCCs and the GLC—in what the Government propose to be the final year of their existence—with their district and borough councils at the tier below them. In the Rates Act, the Government introduced proposals for consultation with the business communities in the authorities in question. It is an amazing paradox that there are now two successive pieces of legislation on local authorities, proposed by the Government, both of which propose extensive consultation, but both of which will be of no use if, in the case of the local authorities in the Rates Act, and of the MCCs and the GLC in this Bill, the authorities in question chose to ignore the results, which they are free to do.
However, at the same time as advocating greater consultation, although without remedy, the Government are taking away the basic constitutional and democratic right of election to authorities, and of authorities to make their own decisions. There will be castrated consultations


—consultations that will have no effect—as a result of this proposal, and at the same time the Bill is introducing a process of demolition about which there is no consultation, because the substantive parts of the proposal do not see the light of day from the time that they arrive at Marsham street. Consultation is desirable, but consultation for a year is hardly a reward to either local authorities at district and borough levels or their electors, for the price that they have had to pay is too high.

Mr. John Fraser: I congratulate the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) on his brevity.
An extraordinary feature of this Bill is that local authorities will now be subject to Government guidance by way of grant-related expenditure, targets, and consulta-tions with lower tier authorities, Government compulsion by way of rate capping, Government control by way of control of contracts, and in addition they will be responsible to those who elected the constituent county councils. That goes to show the extraordinary lengths to which the Government have gone in breaking their promise to set local government free.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords amendment: No. 15, in page 8, line 26, leave out subsection (5).

Mr. Waldegrave: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take Lords amendments Nos. 16 and 20.

Mr. Waldegrave: Amendments Nos. 15 and 16 are consequential to the amendments to part II of the Bill, which the House agreed earlier in these proceedings.
The Bill as originally drafted defined "constituent councils" in part II. However, the amendments to part II, which both Houses have agreed, include the deletion of that definition of "constituent council". That was right and proper, because there is no need to define the councils there, now that they are not going to appoint councillors to the transitional GLC and MCCs. However, it does mean that we also need to delete the definition in clause 9, because it refers back to the part II definition—which is no longer there. That is the purpose of amendment No. 15.
We need to retain somewhere a definition of "constituent council", because it is a term which is used in other clauses of the Bill. It would be appropriate to provide that definition in clause 11—the interpretation clause—and that is the effect of amendment No. 16.
Amendment No. 20 is consequential on Lords amendments Nos. 9, 10, 11 and 12, which introduce new counter obstruction controls on the GLC and MCCs in their general expenditure powers under section 137 and on disposals of land and the entering into contracts above certain threshold limits. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I have already explained why it is necessary to introduce these further obstruction measures and it is only reasonable to reflect these additions in the long title. The introduction of these controls does not alter the basic Aims or nature of the Bill, which is to pave the way for the abolition of these authorities, by making suitable — and workable — interim arrangements. The short title of the Bill remains apt and accurate. Lords amendment No. 20 merely makes the long title more comprehensive.
I have great pleasure in commending the amendments to the House.

Mr. Simon Hughes: There are two sorts of amendment before us. The first relates, as the Under-Secretary told the House, to the definition of "constituent council", and the second relates to the long title. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East (Mr. Brown) seems to be almost inviting me to list the constituent councils. I am tempted to do so, but at this stage I do not think that hon. Members would wish me to. However, I am prompted to point out that, as a result of efforts made during earlier stages of the Bill's passage, the Government have apparently begun to recognise that their original lists of constituent councils were inaccurate in respect of London. They ignored the fact — although they have now put it right — that there are 33 authorities in London. One of them — the City of London — is anomalous, but is nevertheless there for the time being. At least the Government now understand the pattern of local government, even if they do not understand the implications of the new regime. The amendments at least give the Government's legislation some logical pattern.
The most important amendment involves the long title. It is bizarre and anomalous, and strange to the public, that the Government should ask us last of all to support the other place in amending the Bill's title, which comes, of course, at the beginning of it. Some months ago, when the Bill was introduced, the Government said that it sought simply to deal with the problem of elections so that their proposals eventually to abolish the seven county councils, would not, as they saw it, be frustrated by those elections. They saw the elections scheduled for next year as a hurdle which they were unwilling to jump themselves, so they drafted a long title which dealt specifically with the purpose of the Bill.
Now, in the dying stages of our debates, the Government want to amend the Bill. They want to obtain permission to make the Bill into an Act that will control the general expenditure powers of, as well as the disposals of land and contracts made by, the seven largest authorities in England. One might have considered supporting the Government if they had made out their case, but the tragedy is that, as their own Back Benchers have pointed out from the beginning, they have lamentably failed to make the case that they set out to prove.
3.30 am
In 1688 a trial took place in this building which was called the trial of the seven bishops. They were brought before the court for offences of treason and undermining the authority of Britain. They were acquitted because the evidence against them was inadequate to convict them. The Government have, day in and day out since the measure was before us, been asked for evidence of why the seven councils on trial at their instigation should be convicted by them.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We have had Second and Third Readings. We are on Lords amendments. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will address himself to those.

Mr. Hughes: The long title of the Bill is meant to be the accurate title of the Bill. It is meant to have its contents borne out by the facts in the clauses. They are meant to be supported by evidence and argument that should be convincing and win the day.
Those of us who have, from the moment the Bill saw the light of day, said that we intended to oppose it, have done so because we do not believe any more now than at the beginning that the Government have a right to tamper with local government as they are now tampering with the long title of the Bill in order to have their objectives fulfilled, whatever the implications, merits, arguments or opposition.
If the Government persist in making sure that the Bill goes on to become law in the next few hours or days, that will not be the end of their problems. They may think that they have encompassed for the time being in this long title what they propose, but the electorates of the seven counties in question and their representatives in this place will make sure that the Government are not allowed to forget, that they had no good plans at the beginning, that they are no better now and that they will be no better until they are amended out of existence and back to something that we can recognise as democratic proposals fit for the consideration of this place and fit for ultimate approval by Parliament, which these manifestly are not and never have been.

Mr. Straw: There are two overwhelming arguments against the Bill. The first is that it is an affront to democracy. The second is that it has given wholly unnecessary opportunities to the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) to make tedious speeches in the watches of the night, in which he has sought to explain why the Liberal and SDP alliance pledge to abolish the metropolitan county councils and the GLC is different from that of the Government.
There is a racing certainty that the Bill will receive the Royal Assent some time before 31 August. Therefore, this may be the last opportunity that I have to comment on it before it becomes law. All that I would say to the Secretary of State is that if the Bill, as I suspect it will, becomes law his troubles will only just have begun. He will rue the day that he sought to put on to the statute book such an undemocratic and antidemocratic measure.

Question put, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment:—

The House divided: Ayes 243, Noes 41.

Division No. 464]
[3.32 am


AYES


Alexander, Richard
Brinton, Tim


Amess, David
Brooke, Hon Peter


Ashby, David
Brown, M. (Brigg &amp; Cl'thpes)


Aspinwall, Jack
Browne, John


Atkinson, David (B'm'th E)
Bruinvels, Peter


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Vail'y)
Buck, Sir Antony


Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)
Budgen, Nick


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Butterfill, John


Batiste, Spencer
Carlisle, John (N Luton)


Bendall, Vivian
Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)


Berry, Sir Anthony
Carttiss, Michael


Best, Keith
Cash, William


Bevan, David Gilroy
Chalker, Mrs Lynda


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Channon, Rt Hon Paul


Biggs-Davison, Sir John
Chapman, Sydney


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Chope, Christopher


Body, Richard
Churchill, W. S.


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Cockeram, Eric


Bottomley, Peter
Colvin, Michael


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Conway, Derek


Bowden, A. (Brighton K'to'n)
Cope, John


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Cranborne, Viscount


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Crouch, David


Bright, Graham
Currie, Mrs Edwina





Dicks, Terry
McCurley, Mrs Anna


Dorrell, Stephen
MacGregor, John


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.
MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire)


Dover, Den
MacKay, John (Argyll &amp; Bute)


Durant, Tony
Maclean, David John


Eggar, Tim
Malins, Humfrey


Emery, Sir Peter
Malone, Gerald


Fallon, Michael
Maples, John


Farr, Sir John
Marlow, Antony


Favell, Anthony
Mates, Michael


Fenner, Mrs Peggy
Maude, Hon Francis


Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey
Mawhinney, Dr Brian


Forman, Nigel
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Mayhew, Sir Patrick


Forth, Eric
Mellor, David


Fox, Marcus
Merchant, Piers


Franks, Cecil
Miller, Hal (B'grove)


Fraser, Peter (Angus East)
Mills, Iain (Meriden)


Freeman, Roger
Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon)


Gale, Roger
Mitchell, David (NW Hants)


Gardiner, George (Reigate)
Moate, Roger


Goodhart, Sir Philip
Moore, John


Goodlad, Alastair
Mudd, David


Gorst, John
Murphy, Christopher


Gow, Ian
Neale, Gerrard


Grant, Sir Anthony
Needham, Richard


Greenway, Harry
Nelson, Anthony


Gregory, Conal
Neubert, Michael


Griffiths, E. (B'y St Edm'ds)
Nicholls, Patrick


Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)
Normanton, Tom


Grist, Ian
Norris, Steven


Grylls, Michael
Onslow, Cranley


Gummer, John Selwyn
Oppenheim, Phillip


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Osborn, Sir John


Hampson, Dr Keith
Ottaway, Richard


Hanley, Jeremy
Page, Sir John (Harrow W)


Hannam, John
Page, Richard (Herts SW)


Harris, David
Patten, John (Oxford)


Harvey, Robert
Pattie, Geoffrey


Hawksley, Warren
Pawsey, James


Hayes, J.
Percival, Rt Hon Sir Ian


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Pollock, Alexander


Heddle, John
Porter, Barry


Henderson, Barry
Powell, William (Corby)


Hind, Kenneth
Powley, John


Hirst, Michael
Proctor, K. Harvey


Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)
Raffan, Keith


Holt, Richard
Renton, Tim


Hooson, Tom
Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)


Howard, Michael
Robinson, Mark (N'port W)


Howarth, Alan (Stratf'd-on-A)
Roe, Mrs Marion


Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)
Rumbold, Mrs Angela


Howell, Ralph (N Norfolk)
Ryder, Richard


Hubbard-Miles, Peter
Sackville, Hon Thomas


Hunt, David (Wirral)
Sainsbury, Hon Timothy


Hunter, Andrew
Sayeed, Jonathan


Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas
Shelton, William (Streatham)


Jackson, Robert
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)


Jessel, Toby
Shersby, Michael


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Silvester, Fred


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Sims, Roger


Jones, Robert (W Herts)
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)


Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Key, Robert
Speller, Tony


King, Roger (B'ham N'field)
Spencer, Derek


Knight, Gregory (Derby N)
Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)


Knight, Mrs Jill (Edgbaston)
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Lamont, Norman
Squire, Robin


Lang, Ian
Stanbrook, Ivor


Latham, Michael
Steen, Anthony


Lawler, Geoffrey
Stern, Michael


Lawrence, Ivan
Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)


Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)
Stevens, Martin (Fulham)


Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


Lightbown, David
Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)


Lilley, Peter
Stewart, Ian (N Hertf'dshire)


Lloyd, Peter, (Fareham)
Stradling Thomas, J.


Lord, Michael
Sumberg, David


Lyell, Nicholas
Taylor, John (Solihull)






Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)
Wardle, C. (Bexhill)


Temple-Morris, Peter
Warren, Kenneth


Thompson, Donald (Calder V)
Watson, John


Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)
Watts, John


Thorne, Neil (Ilford S)
Wells, Bowen (Hertford)


Thornton, Malcolm
Wheeler, John


Thurnham, Peter
Whitfield, John


Townend, John (Bridlington)
Whitney, Raymond


Trippier, David
Wilkinson, John


Trotter, Neville
Wolfson, Mark


Twinn, Dr Ian
Wood, Timothy


van Straubenzee, Sir W.
Woodcock, Michael


Vaughan, Sir Gerard
Yeo, Tim


Viggers, Peter
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Wakeham, Rt Hon John



Waldegrave, Hon William
Tellers for the Ayes:


Walden, George
Mr. John Major and


Waller, Gary
Mr. Archie Hamilton.


Ward, John





NOES


Alton, David
Harrison, Rt Hon Walter


Ashdown, Paddy
Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)


Barron, Kevin
Hughes, Simon (Southward)


Benn, Tony
Lewis, Terence (Worsley)


Bennett, A. (Denfn &amp; Red'sh)
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Bermingham, Gerald
McGuire, Michael


Boyes, Roland
McKay, Allen (Penistone)


Brown, N. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne E)
Mackenzie, Rt Hon Gregor


Bruce, Malcolm
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)


Carlile, Alexander (Montg'y)
Nellist, David


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Parry, Robert


Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S.)
Pike, Peter


Cohen, Harry
Smith, C.(Isl'ton S &amp; F'bury)


Cook, Frank (Stockton North)
Spearing, Nigel


Corbyn, Jeremy
Straw, Jack


Cunningham, Dr John
Winnick, David


Davies, Ronald (Caerphilly)



Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'ge H'l)
Tellers for the Noes:


Fraser, J. (Norwood)
Mr. A. J. Beith and


Godman, Dr Norman
Mr. John Cartwright.


Hamilton, James (M'well N)

Question accordingly agreed to.

Lords amendments Nos. 16 to 20 agreed to.

Community Pharmacies

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.——[Mr. Boscawen.]

Mr. Roger Gale: I am grateful for the opportunity, even at this late hour, to raise the subject of the future of community, and especially rural, chemists. I am glad that so many of my hon. Friends have stayed to hear what I have to say. The debate springs from a recent meeting with the Isle of Thanet branch of the Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain. I was most impressed by its arguments, and I hope to represent it well and faithfully tonight. I am sorry that my hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, South (Mr. Aitken) is unable to be here, but I am grateful for his fullest support for the arguments that I shall introduce. His constituent, Mr. Milne, in the village of Ash, is as concerned as are my constituents, Mrs. Brook of Garlinge and David Randall and Brian Bond of Margate; and they in turn have the support of the many members of the Isle of Thanet branch.
Our fear is that the future livelihood, and therefore the whole future, of the community and rural pharmacist is at risk. That poses a serious threat to our necessary services —as serious a threat as that posed by the passing of the corner shop or the village post office. The remedy is the same. We must either pay for it and use it, or lose it.
The timing of the debate is opportune, as for once we are not too late. Last week saw the publication of the pharmacist's charter—a 10-point schedule designed not only to maintain but to enhance the service provided by chemists. The Pharmaceutical Services Negotiating Committee, representing the 9,600 pharmacists in England and Wales, is now discussing with the Department of Health and Social Security the future of the chemist's contract. So the time is exactly right for the subject to be aired in the House.
What do the chemists offer, what do they need and what do they want? Aside from the obvious—the dispensing of National Health Service and, sometimes, private prescriptions—the chemist offers much advice, and at present he offers it without reward. It may surprise the House to learn that only about 15 per cent. of ailments are estimated to be taken to the doctor's surgery. The remainder — about 6 million a week — are treated elsewhere and by other means. I do not suggest that anything like all the 85 per cent. take their problems to the chemist, but many do. The lady with the pain in her back may spend 20 minutes discussing her difficulties with the chemist before purchasing a suitably efficacious liniment. The young man with sunburn will call at the chemist to ask for something for it. The catalogue of the counselling is almost endless, the value to the Health Service considerable, and the reward to the chemist, in cash terms, precisely nil.
It is true that the DHSS takes account, in the chemist's contract, of advice given relating to NHS prescriptions; thus, the, "Take three times daily and do not drive while you are taking them", information earns some small reward. But the vast wealth of assistance given—the assistance that often keeps the patient out of the surgery and so keeps the waiting room queue much shorter—is not recognised by the DHSS.
The chemist is reimbursed on a cost-plus basis. Essentially, that means in theory that the DHSS pays his


overheads plus a bit of profit. The practice is rather different. The chemist receives, for his professional skill, the service he provides to the NHS, and the advice given on NHS prescriptions only, a basic practice allowance of just £2,400 a year. He is reimbursed for the cost of his drugs, and any discounts negotiated with the suppliers are, as we now know, clawed back by the Department, so there is no profit there. He is allowed, on a sliding scale, a percentage on-cost that averages at about 11 per cent. to pay his overheads, a container allowance of 3·8p and a professional fee, per prescription, of a new rate—47p. The average pharmacist now reckons that up to 80 per cent. of his business is done with the NHS compared with below 70 per cent. in 1979. Why that increase?
Traditionally and historically, the chemist has been a brewer, manufacturer and purveyor of lotions and potions to the community. He supplied, in addition, their hairbrushes and combs, their flannels and sponges, their soaps and toothbrushes, their scents, their bathsalts and their contraceptives and many other items both mentionable and, less so, beside. It was called the counter trade, and much of it has gone. Where the pharmacist used to mix the medicine, it now comes in proprietary bottles, tablets and capsules. The home-medicaments, the aspirin, paracetamol, lemon drinks and vapour rubs, together with all the domestic and bathroom essentials that I have referred to, are now sold by supermarkets, sweetshops, tobacconists, ironmongers and probably, given the current trend, by most respectable filling stations as well. It is called competition and it is, no doubt, to be encouraged. But if we want the small chemist to survive, we must pay for him. It is no good Mrs. Jones bewailing the fact that she now has to walk 3·5 miles to get her prescription made up because the local chemist has closed, if she has not been inside the place for seven years.
Equally, it will be no good the Minister and his Department regretting increasing queues at the surgery and greater demands for more doctors and more health centres because the service is clogged with the work that was once done by chemists. The time to get it right is now—not when it is too late.
The chemists offer the provision of information and advice. Their job is not to diagnose — that is, quite properly, the doctor's task — but they can prescribe within limits and they can, and do, dispense both on and off prescription. That service to the nation's health can, and should, be rewarded in the basic practice allowance. The chemist can offer, within his pharmacy, basic health advice and health education—at a possible saving to our health bill of many millions.
Given that pharmacists are properly distributed and not simply allowed to proliferate in every high street at the expense of the side street and rural areas, it should then be possible to extend the home visit service already offered by some chemists and of particular value to areas such as my own constituency with a high elderly population. Repeat prescriptions, obtainable from the chemist, would result in a saving of more millions from the current NHS drug bill of £1·3 billion a year: If there is any doubt that millions are wasted, I challenge any Member of this House to examine his or her own bathroom cabinet and to view there the unused pills.
Above all else, let the second pharmacist's allowance be paid not, as al present, as a portion of the fee from every prescription, but to those chemists actually employing a second qualified chemist and, as a result, offering a faster,

better, more efficient service to the patient. Pharmacists, like doctors, vary widely. It is quite wrong to suggest that they cannot and should not be offered an individual contract and I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will not bring that argument here tonight. In case he is tempted to do so, let me remind him that there are, within the Health Service, 29,000 doctors on individual contracts; there is no reason why 9,600 pharmacists should not be treated equally fairly.
The burden of this debate is, as I have said, quite plain. The public and the Government have both a responsibility and a choice: we either support the local chemist, or we lose him. If we do not support him, we shall have no right to complain when he is gone. My right hon. and learned Friend the Minister for Health has indicated his desire to see the pharmacist's service developed to the full benefit of the community. The publication of the pharmacist's charter and the current re-negotiation of the chemist's contract provide the ideal opportunity for that develop-ment to take place and that benefit to accrue.
We have the chance to recognise the value to the whole community of the small chemist and I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister, in his reply, will indicate that the matters of the individual contract, the basic practice fee and the second pharmacists allowance will all be approached sympathetically and with an open mind.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Mr. John Patten): I am pleased that my hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, North (Mr. Gale) raised this important matter on behalf of himself, our hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, South (Mr. Aitken) and the pharmacists in Thanet with whom he has been in discussion recently. I hope that my hon. Friend will take a message to chemists and pharmacists in Thanet from myself and my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister for Health—this Government have no intention of ignoring the needs of local pharmacists; we have no intention of abandoning support schemes for essential small pharmacies. Although I cannot be as forthcoming as my hon. Friend would like because negotiations are still continuing, I hope that he will accept my undertakings.
I can assure my hon. Friend that my ministerial colleagues and I are fully aware of the important role that the community pharmacist plays. He—and increasingly, she — dispenses general practitioners' prescriptions skilfully and promptly and offers readily accessible and knowledgeable health care advice. My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the fact that wide health care advice is provided by pharmacists who also provide other important services, including the sale of a wide range of non-prescription, health care products. All in all, community pharmacists are an essential component of health care in both urban and rural areas.
My right hon. and learned Friend the Minister for Health, at the launch of the National Pharmaceutical Association's "Ask your local pharmacist" campaign, said:
It does seem to me that the general public do not make sufficient use of the professional skills of pharmacists. They are probably not aware of the full extent of the professional skills and qualifications of the pharmacist and the help he could be, and I think a campaign that helps to make people more aware of that will be of very great advantage. Pharmacists are professional men and women, very highly trained and qualified.


My right hon. and learned Friend's words stand. Indeed, if everyone who felt unwell went to his or her doctor the GP system simply could not cope. Studies by my Department suggest that nine out of 10 adults feel unwell at least once during any four-week period, but only a small minority consult their GP. Many rely on self-medication or rest, or take to their beds, and the pharmacist's advice can be invaluable. Advice is given in both town and countryside.
We recognise the important role of the rural pharmacy. The immediate health resource of a pharmacy in a small village where a doctor lives a distance away is valuable to the whole village. That is why we are determined to ensure that a viable network of pharmacies is maintained in rural and urban areas.
There can be financial problems with rural pharmacies, as with other rural services. My hon. Friend pointed them out in his references to the village shop and to other parts of a village community—one might add the village pub and its important role from time to time.
Because of their location, rural pharmacies can have a relatively small dispensing turnover and some may have such a low turnover that their financial viability is in doubt and on the edge. That is why the present system of remuneration for community pharmacists gives special support to essential small pharmacists.
It is important to remind ourselves of exactly what that support scheme does. To qualify, a pharmacy must dispense fewer than 24,000 National Health Service prescription items a year. That compares with a national average dispensation of NHS prescription items of 30,000 a year. As I say, to qualify, a pharmacy must dispense fewer than 24,000 but more than 6,000 items. It must also be more than two kilometres from any other pharmacy.
The main effect of the scheme is felt in rural areas. Such is our support that in 1983 more than £375,000 was distributed among 404 essential small pharmacies in England and Wales. Very small pharmacies received over £1,300 each. The sums paid out reduce as the dispensing volume increases. Pharmacies dispensing between 23,500 and 24,000 prescriptions, for example, received only £350 on average. All in all, the average payment was just under £1,000 in 1983. The amount for distribution this year will be somewhat larger, at £381,000.
Those of us who have had to study the pharmacists' remuneration system recognise that it is complex——

Mr. Gale: indicated assent.

Mr. Patten: ——and I am glad to see my hon. Friend assenting because I know that he, too, has struggled with the complexities of the system on behalf of his constituents who are interested in this subject.
My right hon. and learned Friend the Minister for Health and myself are committed to producing a new NHS contract for community pharmacists which will, I hope, be

somewhat simpler. In saying that, I assure my hon. Friend again of what I said at the beginning, which is that in the production of a new contract, the Government have no intention of ignoring the needs of rural pharmacies and abandoning support schemes for essential small pharmacies.
Negotiations on the new contract have now begun. My hon. Friend will know that, as part of the build-up to these negotiations, the pharmaceutical services negotiating committee has put forward a package of proposals for service developments. I assure my hon. Friend, and my hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, South, that we shall consider carefully all the points that they have made. In addition, we intend to produce a Green Paper on primary health care—that will represent a great bench mark in this area—later in the year, and the Nuffield Foundation has established a committee of inquiry into pharmacy. Much is happening in the pharmacy sphere. All the help and advice that we can get is welcome, and my hon. Friend's contribution tonight has been a significant addition to the consultation process that is taking place over a whole range of ideas.
One idea that has received professional support is the so-called "rational location" of community pharmacies. My hon. Friend will agree that an implication of that is that new pharmacies should be established only where they are necessary. At present, the decision on where any new pharmacy should open is settled by the commercial judgment of the contractor. While we have by no means made up our minds, we must be sure that in going down that road, were we to do so, we would be acting in the patients' interest.
I accept that the medical practices committee exercises detailed control over entry into medical, practice. But, equally, opticians and dentists are free to practise where they will. We need to strike a balance which is right for the circumstances of the profession, for at present, any pharmacist can begin anywhere in an urban area. There is absolute right of entry into a NHS contract. The position is somewhat more complex in rural areas and rather more delicate. I reassure my hon. Friend the for third and last time of the Department's respect for the complexities and the delicacy of the situation in rural areas.
I hope that I have said enough to make clear the Government's support for and commitment to community pharmacy, especially our support for essential rural pharmacies. The Government recognise their responsibil-ity to ensure that there is an adequate dispensing service for the public. We shall continue to discharge that responsibility and I pay tribute to the work of all the individual pharmacists in rural areas who help to provide a service in my hon. Friend's area of Thanet and elsewhere.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at five minutes past Four o'clock am.